Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/trialofcbreynoldOOinge 


Kr 

2A.D 

.TTSI 

y, 


I 


1 


•4 


:F>E=I.I0E,  12S  cts. 


I  ARGUMENT  BY 

5  ROBERT  G.  INGBRSOL-I-. 

°  In  Defence  of  C,  B.  Reynolds,  at  Morristown,  N.  May,  i8Sj. 

^  '  ONLY  AUTHORIZED  EDITION. 

I  t»5r  C.  1*.  rr^RKELL,  Ne-w  York, 


Robert  G.  Ingersoll’s 

COMPLETE  WORKS 


Dresden  Edition  of  13  Handsome  Octavo  Volumes 

Complete  index  to  nil  the  volumes  and  table  of  contents  to  each  volume 


TUF.only  authorized  and  complete  edition  of  InsersolTs  works.  Published  with  the  authority 
and  supervision,  of  the  family,  from  his  manuscripts,  notes  and  literary  memoranda. 
'I'his  erlilion  of  the  writinjrsof  Itohert  G.  Inerersoll  justifies  its  description  as  complete. 
Besides  im-ludiiiff  all  of  the  author's  famous  lectures,  addresses  and  onitions  already 
i.ssued  in  pamphlet  form,  the  volumes  contain  three  thousand  pases  of  matter  not  hitherto 
published.  Among  his  iiiedited  writings,  now  first  appearing,  may  be  mentioned  the  author's 
first  lecture,  entitled  “ Progress."  delivered  in  1800:  the  lectures  on  "Robert  Burns.”  "The 
Great  Infidels."  "My  Reviewers  Reviewed.”  an  answer  to  the  Rev.  Lyman  Abbott's  article, 
"  Flaws  in  Ingersollism.  '  published  in  the  North  American  Revietv;  an  answer  to  .Archdeacon 
Farrar's  article,  ".A  Few  Words  on  Colonel  Ingersoll,"  published  in  the  same  magazine;  an 
answer  to  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's  article  on  "Cruelty;"  many  new  pages  on  Divorce,  after- 
dinner  Speeches,  Magazine  article.s  on  the  Chinese  Question;  essays  on  Art  and  Morality, 
"Three  Philanthropists,”  "  Is  Avarice  I'liumphant?”  "Some  Interrogation  Points"  (on  the 
Labor  Question):  Prefaces.  Tributes.  Fragments,  etc.,  etc.  .Among  the  numerous  essavs  to  be 
found  ill  the.se  volumes  are  those  on  Professor  Huxley,  Frnest  Renan,  and  Count  Tolstoy 

The  matter  given  precedence  in  the  Dresden  Fdition.  as  might  be  foreseen,  comprises  the 
author  s  great  lectures  on  the  Bible  and  the  Christian  Religion  and  his  discussions  with  theo¬ 
logians.  amateur  and  professional.  Among  his  opponents  were  the  Rt.  Hon.  W.  F).  Gladstone. 
Cardinal  Manning,  Judge  Jeremiah  Black,  and  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  whose  defences  of 
their  faith  are  given  in  full.  It  is  doubted  that  Colonel  Ingersoll's  Replies  will  be  found  in  the 
published  writings  of  those  authors. 

The  work  is  beautifully  illustrated  with  photogravures,  etchings,  half-tones  and  fac¬ 
similes,  consisting  of  portraits  of  the  author  taken  at  various  times,  and  other  matter  pertinent 
to  the  work.s.  The  thirteen  volumes  contain  over  7600  pages,  printed  in  large  type,  on  finest  of 
laid  deckle  edge  paper,  wide  margins,  gilt  tops,  and  bound  library  style,  in  olive  green  cloth 
or  94  morocco.  Sold  only  in  sets. 

Price,  cloth,  $32.50  94  morocco.  $78.00 


COMMENTS 

“Colonel  Ingersoll  writes  with  a  rare  and  enviable  brilliancy.” — Wm.  E.  Gladstone. 

"  1  envy  the  land  that  brings  forth  such  glorious  fruit  as  an  Ingersoll.” 

— Bjornstjebne  Bjornson. 

"Col.  Ingersoll  is  a  wonderful  man,  his  speech  for  half  an  hour  was  a  revelation.  ‘  Royal 
Bob,'  as  Garfield  called  him,  was  never  in  better  feather,  and  how  deep  he  goes  and  how  high 
he  soars." — Walt  Whitman, 

'  Col.  Ingersoll.  the  man  whom  above  all  others  1  should  have  wi.shed  and  hoped  to  meet  if 
I  had  visited  America  during  his  lifetime.” — Algernon  Char'les  Swinbcrne. 

“  Col.  Ingersoll,  whose  services  for  the  promotion  of  the  truth,  I  value  mo.st  sincerely.” 

— Prof.  Ernst  Haeckel. 

"  His  was  a  great  and  beautiful  spirit;  he  was  a  man — all  man.  from  his  crown  to  his  foot 
.soles.  My  reverence  for  him  was  deep  and  genuine  I  prized  his  affection  for  me,  and  returned 
it  with  usury."— Mark  Twain. 

"  It  is  my  strong  conviction  that  but  for  orthodox  animosity.  Col-  Ingersoll  would  have  been 
President  of  the  United  States.  Certainly,  no  man  of  his  ability  ever  occupied  that  office.  I  am 
in  hopes  that  the  great  Agnostic's  biography  will  be  completely  written.  It  will  be  as  striking 
a  chapter  in  American  history  as  the  life  of  Abraham  Lincoln.” — Ur.  Moncure  D.  Conway,  in 
South  Place  Magazine,  London,  England. 

"  Now,  fellow  citizens,  let  me  introduce  to  you  a  man.  who.  1  say  not  fiatteringly  but  with 
.sincere  conviction,  is  the  most  brilliant  speaker  of  the  English  tongue  in  any  land  on  the 
globe.” — Henry  Ward  Beecher. 

"A  perfect  wonder  of  eloquence  and  power,  he  made  a  speech  before  the  Supreme  Court  in 
Washington  last  winter  which  was  an  absolute  whirlwind. and  rarried  away  in  its  resi.stlc.ss 
current  even  that  august  bench.” — Judge  Jere.miaii  S.  Black,  Phila.  'I'imes,  Sept.  bS,  1876. 


Send  for  catalogue,  containing  full  description  of  the  Dresden  Edition.  Ingersoll's  Miscel¬ 
laneous  Pamphlets,  Portraits,  .Souvenir  Spoons,  and  any  thing  pertaining  to  Ingersoll,  to  C.  P. 
F'arrell,  117  East  fist  Street,  New  A'ork  (jitv,  N.  Y. 


TRIAL 


C.  B.  REYNOLDS 

FOR 

BLASPHEMY, 

AT 

Morristown,  N.  J.,  May  i9th^2oth,  1887. 

DEFENCB 


Robert  G.  Ingersoll. 


SUncgraphically  Reported  by  /.  N.  Baker,  and  Revised  by  the  Author. 


NEW  YORK 

C.  F.  FARRELL,  PUBLISHER 
1913 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1888 
By  C.  P.  Fakbell, 

the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D,  C. 


Copvrioht  renewed 


/ 


PUBLISHER’S  PREFACE. 


Mr.  C.  B.  REYNOLDS,  the  accused,  is  an  ac¬ 
credited  missionary  of  freethought  and  speech 
who,  under  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  went 
from  town  to  town  in  New  Jersey,  lecturing  and  preach¬ 
ing  to  those  who  had  invited  him  and  to  all  who  chose 
to  come.  His  methods  of  invitation  were  the  ordinary 
ones  of  circulars,  newspaper  notices,  bill  posters,  and 
personal  address.  His  meetings  were  attended  by  the 
best  people  of  the  place,  and  were  orderly  and  quiet 
except  as  disturbed  by  Christian  mobs,  unrestrained  by 
local  officials. 

At  one  of  these  meetings,  in  Boonton,  he  was  attacked 
with  missiles  of  every  kind,  while  speaking — his  tent 
destroyed,  and  he  compelled  to  seek  safety  in  flight. 
An  action  for  damages  against  the  town  resulted  in  a 
counter  action  for  disturbing  the  peace.  Through  the 
cowardice  and  inaction  of  the  authorities  the  issue  was 
never  joined. 


LS8't78 


Duke  U.  Law  Library 


IV. 


PUBLISHER’S  PREFACE. 


Not  datmted  by  persecution  he  continued  his  labors, 
making  Morristown  his  next  field  of  operations.  Here 
he  circulated  a  pamphlet  giving  his  views  of  theology, 
and  appended  a  satirical  cartoon  of  his  Boonton  experi¬ 
ence.  This  cartoon  was  tne  gravamen  of  his  offence. 
For  this  he  was  indicted  on  a  charge  of  “Blasphemy,” 
and  brought  before  a  Morristown  jury.  The  religious 
&rce  ended  in  a  fine  of  $25.00. 

C.  F.  Farrell. 


Mr.  Ingersoll’s  Argument, 


GENTI.EMEN  OF  THE  JuRY  :  I  regard  this  as  one  of 
the  most  important  cases  that  can  be  submitted  to  a 
jury.  It  is  not  a  case  that  involves  a  little  property, 
neither  is  it  one  that  involves  simply  the  liberty  of  one 
man.  It  involves  the  freedom  of  speech,  the  intellectual 
liberty  of  every  citizen  of  New  Jersey. 

The  question  to  be  tried  by  you  is  whether  a  man  has 
the  right  to  express  his  honest  thought ;  and  for  that 
reason  there  can  be  no  case  of  greater  importance  sub¬ 
mitted  to  a  jury.  And  it  may  be  well  enough  for  me, 
at  the  outset,  to  admit  that  there  could  be  no  case  in 
which  I  could  take  a  greater — a  deeper  interest.  For 
my  part,  I  would  not  wish  to  live  in  a  world  where  I 
could  not  express  my  honest  opinions.  Men  who  deny 
to  others  the  right  of  speech  are  not  fit  to  live  with 
honest  men. 

I  deny  the  right  of  any  man,  of  any  number  of  men, 
of  any  church,  of  any  State,  to  put  a  padlock  on  the 
lips — to  make  the  tongue  a  convict.  I  passionately 
deny  Ithe  right  of  the  Herod  of  authority  to  kill  the 
children  of  the  brain. 

1.9877$) 


Duke  U.  L«w  Libwury 


4 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


A  man  has  a  right  to  work  with  his  hands,  to  plow 
the  earth,  to  sow  the  seed,  and  that  man  has  a  right 
to  reap  the  harvest.  If  we  have  not  that  right,  then 
all  are  slaves  except  those  who  take  these  rights  from 
their  fellow-men.  If  you  have  the  right  to  work  with 
your  hands  and  to  gather  the  harvest  for  yourself 
and  your  children,  have  you  not  a  right  to  cultivate 
your  brain  ?  Have  you  not  the  right  to  read,  to  observe, 
to  investigate  —  and  when  you  have  so  read  and  so 
investigated,  have  you  not  the  right  to  reap  that  field  ? 
And  what  is  it  to  reap  that  field?  It  is  simply  to 
express  what  you  have  ascertained — simply  to  give 
your  thoughts  to  your  fellow-men. 

If  there  is  one  subject  in  this  world  worthy  of  being 
discussed,  worthy  of  being  understood,  it  is  the  question 
of  intellectual  liberty.  Without  that,  we  are  simply 
painted  clay  ;  without  that,  we  are  poor  miserable  serfs 
and  slaves.  If  you  have  not  the  right  to  express  your 
opinions,  if  the  defendant  has  not  this  right,  then 
no  man  ever  walked  beneath  the  blue  of  heaven  that 
had  the  right  to  express  his  thought.  If  others  claim 
the  right,  where  did  they  get  it  ?  How  did  they  happen 
to  have  it,  and  how  did  you  happen  to  be  deprived 
of  it  ?  Where  did  a  church  or  a  nation  get  that  right  ? 

Are  we  not  all  children  of  the  same  Mother?  Are 
we  not  all  compelled  to  think,  whether  we  vdsh  to 
or  not?  Can  you  help  thinking  as  you  do?  When 
you  look  out  upon  the  woods,  the  fields,  — when  you 


MR.  INGERSOLIv’S  ARGUMENT. 


5 


look  at  the  solemn  splendors  of  the  night — these  things 
produce  certain  thoughts  in  your  mind,  and  they  pro¬ 
duce  them  necessarily.  No  man  can  think  as  he 
desires  No  man  controls  the  action  of  his  brain,  any 
more  than  he  controls  the  action  of  his  heart.  The 
blood  pursues  its  old  accustomed  ways  in  spite  of  you. 
The  eyes  see,  if  you  open  them,  in  spite  of  you.  The 
ears  hear,  if  they  are  unstopped,  without  asking  your 
permission.  And  the  brain  thinks,  in  spite  of  you. 
Should  you  express  that  thought?  Certainly  you 
should,  if  others  express  theirs.  You  have  exactly 
the  same  right.  He  who  takes  it  from  you  is  a  robber. 

For  thousands  of  years  people  have  been  trying  to 
force  other  people  to  think  their  way.  Did  they  suc¬ 
ceed?  No.  Will  they  succeed ?  No.  Why?  Because 
brute  force  is  not  an  argument.  You  can  stand  with 
the  lash  over  a  man,  or  you  can  stand  by  the  prison 
door,  or  beneath  the  gallows,  or  by  the  stake,  and  say 
to  this  man  :  ‘  ‘  Recant,  or  the  lash  descends,  the  prison 
door  is  locked  upon  you,  the  rope  is  put  about  your 
neck,  or  the  torch  is  given  to  the  fagot.”  And  so  the 
man  recants.  Is  he  convinced?  Not  at  all.  Have  you 
produced  a  new  argument?  Not  the  slightest.  And 
yet  the  ignorant  bigots  of  this  world  have  been  try¬ 
ing  for  thousands  of  years  to  rule  the  minds  of  men 
by  brute  force.  They  have  endeavored  to  improve 
the  mind  by  torturing  the  flesh — to  spread  religion 
with  the  sword  and  torch.  They  have  tried  to  con- 


6  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

vince  their  brothers  by  putting  their  feet  in  iron  boots, 
by  putting  fathers,  mothers,  patriots,  philosophers  and 
philanthropists  in  dungeons.  And  what  has  been  the 
result?  Are  we  any  nearer  thinking  alike  to-day  than 
we  were  then? 

No  orthodox  church  ever  had  power  that  it  did  not 
endeavor  to  make  people  think  its  way  by  force  and 
flame.  And  yet  every  church  that  ever  was  established 
commenced  in  the  minority,  and  while  it  was  in  the 
minority  advocated  free  speech — every  one.  John 
Calvin,  the  founder  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  while 
he  lived  in  France,  wrote  a  book  on  religious  toleration 
in  order  to  show  that  all  men  had  an  equal  right  to 
think  ;  and  yet  that  man  afterwards,  clothed  in  a  little 
authority,  forgot  all  his  sentiments  about  religious 
liberty,  and  had  poor  Servetus  burned  at  the  stake, 
for  difiering  with  him  on  a  question  that  neither  of 
them  knew  anything  about  In  the  minority,  Calvin 
advocated  toleration  —  in  the  majority,  he  practised 
murder. 

I  want  you  to  understand  what  has  been  done  in 
the  world  to  force  men  to  think  alike.  It  seems  to 
me  that  if  there  is  some  infinite  being  who  wants  us 
to  think  alike,  he  would  have  made  us  alike.  Why 
did  he  not  do  so?  Why  did  he  make  your  brain  so 
that  you  could  not  by  any  possibility  be  a  Methodist? 
Why  did  he  make  yours  so  that  you  could  not  be  a 
Catholic  ?  And  why  did  he  make  the  brain  of  another 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument.  7 

SO  that  he  is  an  unbeliever — why  the  brain  of  another 
so  that  he  became  a  Mohammedan — if  he  wanted  us 
all  to  believe  alike? 

After  all,  may  be  Nature  is  good  enough,  and  grand 
enough,  and  broad  enough  to  give  us  the  diversity 
bom  of  liberty.  May  be,  after  all,  it  would  not  be 
best  for  us  all  to  be  just  the  same.  What  a  stupid 
world,  if  everybody  said  yes  to  everything  that  every¬ 
body  else  might  say. 

The  most  important  thing  in  this  world  is  liberty. 
More  important  than  food  or  clothes — more  important 
than  gold  or  houses  or  lands — more  important  than 
art  or  science — more  important  than  all  religions,  is 
the  liberty  of  man. 

If  civilization  tends  to  do  away  with  liberty,  then 
I  agree  with  Mr.  Buckle  that  civilization  is  a  curse. 
Gladly  would  I  give  up  the  splendors  of  the  nineteenth 
century — gladly  would  I  forget  every  invention  that 
has  leaped  from  the  brain  of  man — gladly  would  I 
see  all  books  ashes,  all  works  of  art  destroyed,  all 
statues  broken,  and  all  the  triumphs  of  the  world 
lost — gladly,  joyously  would  I  go  back  to  the  abodes 
and  dens  of  savagery,  if  that  is  necessary  to  preserve 
the  inestimable  gem  of  human  liberty.  So  would  every 
man  who  has  a  heart  and  brain. 

How  has  the  church  in  every  age,  when  in  authority, 
defended  itself?  Always  by  a  statute  against  blasphemy, 
against  argument,  against  free  speech.  And  there  never 


8 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


was  such  a  statute  that  did  not  stain  the  book  that  it 
was  in,  and  that  did  not  certify  to  the  savagery  of 
the  men  who  passed  it.  Never.  By  making  a  statute 
and  by  defining  blasphemy,  the  Church  sought  to  pre¬ 
vent  discussion — sought  to  prevent  argument — sought 
to  prevent  a  man  giving  his  honest  opinion.  Certainly 
a  tenet,  a  dog^a,  a  doctrine  is  safe  when  hedged  about 
by  a  statute  that  prevents  your  speaking  against  it. 
In  the  silence  of  slavery  it  exists.  It  lives  because 
lips  are  locked.  It  lives  because  men  are  slaves. 

If  I  understand  myself,  I  advocate  only  the  doctrines 
that  in  my  judgment  will  make  this  world  happier  and 
better.  If  I  know  myself,  I  advocate  only  those  things 
that  will  make  a  man  a  better  citizen,  a  better  father,  a 
kinder  husband  —  that  will  make  a  woman  a  better 
wife,  a  better  mother — doctrines  that  will  fill  every 
home  with  sunshine  and  with  joy.  And  if  I  believed 
that  anything  I  should  say  to-day  would  have  any 
other  possible  tendency,  I  would  stop.  I  am  a  believer 
in  liberty.  That  is  my  religion — to  give  to  every  other 
human  being  every  right  that  I  claim  for  myself,  and  I 
grant  to  every  other  human  being,  not  the  right — 
because  it  is  his  right — but  instead  of  granting  I  declare 
that  it  is  his  right,  to  attack  every  doctrine  that  I  main¬ 
tain,  to  answer  every  argument  that  I  may  urge — in 
other  words,  he  must  have  absolute  freedom  of  speech. 

I  am  a  believer  in  what  I  call  ‘  ‘  intellectual  hospital¬ 
ity.”  A  man  comes  to  your  door.  If  you  are  a  gentle- 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


9 


man  and  he  appears  to  be  a  good  man,  you  receive  him 
with  a  smile.  You  ask  after  his  health.  You  say : 
“Take  a  chair;  are  you  thirsty,  are  you  hungry,  will 
you  not  break  bread  with  me?”  That  is  what  a  hospi¬ 
table,  good  man  does — he  does  not  set  the  dog  on  him. 
Now  how  should  we  treat  a  new  thought?  I  say  that 
the  brain  should  be  hospitable  and  say  to  the  new 
thought :  ‘  ‘  Come  in  ;  sit  down  ;  I  want  to  cross- 

examine  you  ;  I  want  to  find  whether  you  are  good 
or  bad  ;  if  good,  stay  ;  if  bad,  I  don’ t  want  to  hurt 
you — probably  you  think  you  are  all  right, — but  your 
room  is  better  than  your  company,  and  I  will  take 
another  idea  in  your  place.”  Why  not?  Can  any 
man  have  the  egotism  to  say  that  he  has  found  it  all 
out?  No.  Every  man  who  has  thought,  knows  not 
only  how  little  he  knows,  but  how  little  every  other 
human  being  knows,  and  how  ignorant  after  all  the 
world  must  be. 

There  was  a  time  in  Europe  when  the  Catholic  church 
had  power.  And  I  want  it  distinctly  understood  with 
this  jury,  that  while  I  am  opposed  to  Catholicism  I 
am  not  opposed  to  Catholics — while  I  am  opposed  to 
Presbyterianism  I  am  not  opposed  to  Presbyterians. 
I  do  not  fight  people, — I  fight  ideas,  I  fight  principles, 
and  I  never  go  into  personalities.  As  I  said,  I  do  not 
hate  Presbyterians,  but  Presbyterianism  —  that  is  I  am 
opposed  to  their  doctrine.  I  do  not  hate  a  man  that 
has  the  rheumatism — I  hate  the  rheumatism  when  it 


lO 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


has  a  man.  So  I  attack  certain  principles  because  I 
think  they  are  wrong,  but  I  always  want  it  understood 
that  I  have  nothing  against  persons — nothing  against 
victims. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  Catholic  church  was  in 
power  in  the  Old  World.  All  at  once  there  arose  a 
man  called  Martin  Luther,  and  what  did  the  dear  old 
Catholics  think?  “Oh,”  they  said,  “that  man  and 
all  his  followers  are  going  to  Hell.”  But  they  did 
not  go.  They  were  very  good  people.  They  may 
have  been  mistaken — I  do  not  know.  I  think  they 
were  right  in  their  opposition  to  Catholicism — but  I 
have  just  as  much  objection  to  the  religion  they  founded 
as  I  have  to  the  Church  they  left.  But  they  thought 
they  were  right,  and  they  made  very  good  citizens, 
and  it  turned  ont  that  their  differing  from  the  Mother 
Church  did  not  hurt  them.  And  then  after  awhile 
they  began  to  divide,  and  there  arose  Baptists,  and 
the  other  gentlemen,  who  believed  in  this  law  that  is 
now  in  New  Jersey,  began  cutting  off  their  ears  so  that 
they  could  hear  better  ;  they  began  putting  them  in 
prison  so  that  they  would  have  a  chance  to  think. 
But  the  Baptists  turned  out  to  be  good  folks — first 
rate — good  husbands,  good  fathers,  good  citizens.  And 
in  a  little  while,  in  England,  the  people  turned  to  be 
Episcopalians,  on  account  of  a  little  war  that  Henry 
the  Eighth  had  with  the  Pope, — and  I  always  sided 
with  the  Pope  in  that  war — but  it  made  no  difference  ; 


MR.  INGERS0I.L’S  argument. 


II 


and  in  a  little  while  the  Episcopalians  turned  out  to 
be  just  about  like  other  folks — no  worse — not  as  I 
know  of,  any  better. 

After  awhile  arose  the  Puritan,  and  the  Episcopalian 
said,  “We  don’t  want  anything  of  him — he  is  a  bad 
man  and  they  finally  drove  some  of  them  away  and 
they  settled  in  New  England,  and  there  were  among 
them  Quakers,  than  whom  there  never  were  better 
people  on  the  earth — industrious,  frugal,  gentle,  kind 
and  loving  —  and  yet  these  Puritans  began  hanging 
them.  They  said  :  “  They  are  corrupting  our  children  ; 
if  this  thing  goes  on,  everybody  will  believe  in  being 
kind  and  gentle  and  good,  and  what  will  become  of 
us?”  They  were  honest  about  it.  So  they  went  to 
cutting  off  ears.  But  the  Quakers  were  good  people 
and  none  of  the  prophecies  were  fulfilled. 

In  a  little  while  there  came  some  Unitarians  and 
they  said,  ‘  ‘  The  world  is  going  to  ruin,  sure  ’  —  but 
the  world  went  on  as  usual,  and  the  Unitarians  pro¬ 
duced  men  like  Channing — one  of  the  tenderest  spirits 
that  ever  lived  —  they  produced  men  like  Theodore 
Parker; — one  of  the  greatest  brained  and  greatest 
hearted  men  produced  upon  this  continent  —  a  good 
man — and  yet  they  thought  he  was  a  blasphemer — 
they  even  prayed  for  his  death — on  their  bended  knees 
they  asked  their  God  to  take  time  to  kill  him.  Well, 
they  were  mistaken.  Honest,  probably. 

After  awhile  came  the  Universalists,  who  said  :  “God 


12 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


is  good.  He  will  not  damn  anybody  always,  just  for  a 
little  mistake  he  made  here.  This  is  a  very  short  life  ; 
the  path  we  travel  is  very  dim,  and  a  great  many 
shadows  fall  in  the  way,  and  if  a  man  happens  to 
stub  his  toe,  God  will  not  bum  him  forever.”  And 
then  all  the  rest  of  the  sects  cried  out,  “Why,  if 
you  do  away  with  hell,  everybody  will  murder  just  for 
pastime — everybody  will  go  to  stealing  just  to  enjoy 
themselves.”  But  they  did  not.  The  Universalists 
were  good  people — just  as  good  as  any  others.  Most  of 
them  much  better.  None  of  the  prophecies  were  ful¬ 
filled,  and  yet  the  differences  existed. 

And  so  we  go  on  until  we  find  people  who  do  not 
believe  the  bible  at  all,  and  when  they  say  they  do  not, 
they  come  within  this  statute. 

Now  gentlemen,  I  am  going  to  tr>"  to  show  you,  first, 
that  this  statute  under  which  Mr.  Reynolds  is  being 
tried  is  unconstitutional — that  it  is  not  in  harmony 
with  the  Constitution  of  New  Jersey  ;  and  I  am  going 
to  tr>^  to  show  you  in  addition  to  that,  that  it  was  passed 
hundreds  of  years  ago,  by  men  who  believed  it  was  right 
to  burn  heretics  and  tie  Quakers  at  the  end  of  a  cart, 
men  and  even  modest  women — stripped  naked — and 
lash  them  from  town  to  town.  They  were  the  men 
who  originally  passed  that  statute,  and  I  want  to  show 
you  that  it  has  slept  all  this  time,  and  I  am  informed — 
I  do  not  know  how  it  is — that  there  never  has  been  a 
prosecution  in  this  state  for  blasphemy. 


MR.  INGERSOI^L’S  ARGUMENT.  1 3 

Now  gentlemen,  what  is  blasphemy?  Of  course  no¬ 
body  knows  what  it  is,  unless  he  takes  into  consideration 
where  he  is.  What  is  blasphemy  in  one  country  would 
be  a  religious  exhortation  in  another.  It  is  owing  to 
where  you  are  and  who  is  in  authority.  And  let  me 
call  your  attention  to  the  impudence  and  bigotry  of 
the  American  Christians.  We  send  missionaries  to  other 
countries.  What  for  ?  To  tell  them  that  their  religion 
is  false,  that  their  Gods  are  myths  and  monsters,  that 
their  Saviours  and  apostles  were  imposters,  and  that 
our  religion  is  true.  You  send  a  man  from  Morris¬ 
town — a  Presbyterian,  over  to  Turkey.  He  goes  there, 
and  he  tells  the  Mohammedans  —  and  he  has  it  in  a 
pamphlet  and  he  distributes  it — that  the  Koran  is  a 
lie,  that  Mohammet  was  not  a  prophet  of  God,  that 
the  angel  Gabriel  is  not  so  large  that  it  is  four  hundred 
leagues  between  his  eyes  —  that  it  is  all  a  mistake — 
that  ther^  never  was  an  angel  as  large  as  that.  Then 
what  would  the  Turks  do?  Suppose  the  Turks  had  a 
law  like  this  statute  in  New  Jersey.  They  would  put 
the  Morristown  missionary  in  jail,  and  he  would  send 
home  word,  and  then  what  would  the  people  of  Morris¬ 
town  say?  Honestly — what  do  you  think  they  would 
say?  They  would  say,  “Why  look  at  those  poor, 
heathen  wretches.  We  sent  a  man  over  there  armed 
with  the  truth,  and  yet  they  were  so  blinded  by  their 
idolatrous  religion,  so  steeped  in  superstition,  that  they 
actually  put  that  man  in  prison.”  Gentlemen,  does 


14  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

not  that  show  the  need  of  more  missionaries  ?  I  would 
say,  yes. 

Now  let  us  turn  the  tables.  A  gentleman  comes  from 
Turkey  to  Morristown.  He  has  got  a  pamphlet  He 
says,  “The  Koran  is  the  inspired  book,  Mohammed 
is  the  real  prophet,  your  bible  is  false  and  your  Saviour 
simply  a  myth.”  Thereupon  the  Morristown  people 
put  him  in  jail.  Then  what  would  the  Turks  say? 
They  would  say,  “Morristown  needs  more  mission¬ 
aries,”  and  I  would  agree  with  them. 

In  other  words,  what  we  want  is  intellectual  hospi¬ 
tality.  Let  the  world  talk.  And  see  how  foolish  this 
trial  is  :  I  have  no  doubt  but  the  prosecuting  attorney 
agrees  with  me  to-day,  that  whether  this  law  is  good 
or  bad,  this  trial  should  not  have  taken  place.  And 
let  me  tell  you  why.  Here  comes  a  man  into  your 
town  and  circulates  a  pamphlet.  Now  if  they  had  just 
kept  still,  very  few  would  ever  have  heard  of  it.  That 
would  have  been  the  end.  The  diameter  of  the  echo 
would  have  been  a  few  thousand  feet.  But  in  order 
to  stop  the  discussion  of  that  question,  they  indicted 
this  man,  and  that  question  has  been  more  discussed 
in  this  country  since  this  indictment  than  all  the  dis¬ 
cussions  put  together  since  New  Jersey  was  first  granted 
to  Charles  the  Second’s  dearest  brother  James,  the  Duke 
of  York.  And  what  else?  A  trial  here  that  is  to  be 
reported  and  published  all  over  the  United  States,  a 
trial  that  will  give  Mr.  Reynolds  a  congregation  of 


MR.  INGERSOLIv^S  ARGUMENT.  15 

fifty  millions  of  people.  And  yet  this  was  done  for  the 
purpose  of  stopping  a  discussion  of  this  subject.  I  want 
to  show  you  that  the  thing  is  in  itself  almost  idiotic — 
that  it  defeats  itself,  and  that  you  cannot  crush  out  these 
things  by  force.  Not  only  so,  but  Mr.  Reynolds  has  the 
right  to  be  defended,  and  his  counsel  has  the  right  to 
give  his  opinions  on  this  subject. 

Suppose  that  we  put  Mr.  Reynolds  in  jail.  The 
argument  has  not  been  sent  to  jail.  That  is  still  going 
the  rounds,  free  as  the  winds.  Suppose  you  keep  him 
at  hard  labor  a  year — all  the  time  he  is  there  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  people  will  be  reading  some  account, 
or  some  fragment,  of  this  trial.  There  is  the  trouble. 
If  you  could  only  imprison  a  thought,  then  intellectual 
tyranny  might  succeed.  If  you  could  only  take  an 
argument  and  put  a  striped  suit  of  clothes  on  it — if 
you  could  only  take  a  good,  splendid,  shining  fact  and 
lock  it  up  in  some  dungeon  of  ignorance,  so  that  its 
light  would  never  again  enter  the  mind  of  man,  then 
you  might  succeed  in  stopping  human  progress.  Other¬ 
wise,  no. 

Let  us  see  about  this  particular  statute.  In  the  first 
place,  the  State  has  a  Constitution.  That  Constitution 
is  a  rule,  a  limitation  to  the  power  of  the  legislature, 
and  a  certain  breast-work  for  the  protection  of  private 
rights,  and  the  Constitution  says  to  this  sea  of  passions 
and  prejudices  :  “Thus  far  and  no  farther.”  The  Con¬ 
stitution  says  to  each  individual  :  ‘  ‘  This  shall  panoply 


l6  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

you  ;  this  is  your  complete  coat  of  mail  ;  this  shall 
defend  your  rights.”  And  it  is  usual  in  this  country 
to  make  as  a  part  of  each  Constitution  several  general 
declarations — called  the  Bill  of  Rights.  So  I  find  that 
in  the  old  Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  which  was 
adopted  in  the  year  of  grace  1776,  although  the  people 
at  that  time  were  not  educated  as  they  are  now — the 
spirit  of  the  Revolution  at  that  time  not  having  perme¬ 
ated  all  classes  of  society — a  declaration  in  favor  of 
religious  freedom.  The  people  were  on  the  eve  of  a 
Revolution.  This  Constitution  was  adopted  on  the 
third  day  of  July,  1776,  one  day  before  the  immortal 
Declaration  of  Independence.  Now  what  do  we  find 
in  this — and  we  have  got  to  go  by  this  light,  by  this 
torch,  when  we  examine  the  statute. 

I  find  in  that  Constitution,  in  its  Eighteenth  Section, 
this  :  “No  person  shall  ever  in  this  State  be  deprived  of 
the  inestimable  privilege  of  worshipping  God  in  a 
manner  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience  ; 
nor  under  any  pretence  whatever  be  compelled  to  attend 
any  place  of  worship  contrary  to  his  own  faith  and  judg¬ 
ment  ;  nor  shall  he  be  obliged  to  pay  tithes,  taxes,  or 
any  other  rates  for  the  purpose  of  building  or  repairing 
any  church  or  churches,  contrary  to  what  he  believes  to 
be  true.  ’  ’  That  was  a  very  great  and  splendid  step.  It 
was  the  divorce  of  Church  and  State.  It  no  longer 
allowed  the  State  to  levy  taxes  for  the  support  of  a 
particular  religion,  and  it  said  to  every  citizen  of  New 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  1 7 

Jersey:  All  tliat  you  give  for  that  purpose  must  be 
voluntarily  given,  and  the  State  will  not  compel  you  to 
pay  for  the  maintenance  of  a  Church  in  which  you  do 
not  believe.  So  far  so  good. 

The  next  paragraph  was  not  so  good.  ‘  ‘  There  shall 
be  no  establishment  of  any  one  religious  sect  in  this 
State  in  preference  to  another,  and  no  Protestant  inhab¬ 
itants  of  this  State  shall  be  denied  the  enjoyment  of  any 
civil  right  merely  on  account  of  his  religious  principles  ; 
but  all  persons  professing  a  belief  in  the  faith  of  any 
Protestant  sect,  who  shall  demean  themselves  peaceably, 
shall  be  capable  of  being  elected  to  any  office  of  profit  or 
trust,  and  shall  fully  and  freely  enjoy  every  privilege 
and  immunity  enjoyed  by  other  citizens.” 

What  became  of  the  Catholics  under  that  clause,  I  do 
not  know — whether  they  had  any  right  to  be  elected  to 
office  or  not  under  this  Act.  But  in  1844,  the  State 
having  grown  civilized  in  the  meantime,  another  Con¬ 
stitution  was  adopted.  The  word  Protestant  was  then 
left  out.  There  was  to  be  no  establishment  of  one 
religion  over  another.  But  Protestantism  did  not  render 
a  man  capable  of  being  elected  to  office  any  more  than 
Catholicism,  and  nothing  is  said  about  any  religious 
belief  whatever.  So  far,  so  good. 

“No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification 
for  any  office  of  public  trust.  No  person  shall  be  denied 
the  enjoyment  of  any  civil  right  on  account  of  his 
religious  principles.” 


1 8  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

That  is  a  very  broad  and  splendid  provision.  “No 
person  shall  be  denied  any  civil  right  on  account  of  his 
religious  principles.”  That  was  copied  from  the  Vir¬ 
ginia  Constitution,  and  that  clause  in  the  Virginia 
Constitution  was  written  by  Thomas  Jefferson,  and 
under  that  clause  men  were  entitled  to  give  their  testi¬ 
mony  in  the  courts  of  Virginia  whether  they  believed 
in  any  religion  or  not,  in  any  bible  or  not,  or  in  any 
God  or  not. 

That  same  clause  was  afterwards  adopted  by  the 
State  of  Illinois,  also  by  many  other  States,  and  wher¬ 
ever  that  clause  is,  no  citizen  can  be  denied  any  civil 
right  on  account  of  his  religious  principles.  It  is  a 
broad  and  generous  clause.  This  statute  under  which 
this  indictment  is  drawn,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  that  splendid  sentiment.  Under  that  clause, 
no  man  can  be  deprived  of  any  civil  right  on  account 
of  his  religious  principles,  or  on  account  of  his  belief. 
And  yet,  on  account  of  this  miserable,  this  antiquated, 
this  barbarous  and  savage  statute,  the  same  man  who 
cannot  be  denied  any  political  or  civil  right,  can  be 
sent  to  the  penitentiary  as  a  common  felon  for  simply 
expressing  his  honest  thought.  And  before  I  get 
through  I  hope  to  convince  you  that  this  statute  is 
unconstitutional. 

But  we  will  go  another  step  :  ‘  ‘  Eveiy'  person  may 
freely  speak,  write,  or  publish  his  sentiments  on  all 
subjects,  being  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  that  right” 


MR.  ingersolr’s  argument. 


19 


That  is  in  the  Constitution  of  nearly  every  State  in 
the  Union,  and  the  intention  of  that  is  to  cover  slander¬ 
ous  words — to  cover  a  case  where  a  man  under  pretence 
of  enjoying  the  freedom  of  speech  falsely  assails  or 
accuses  his  neighbor.  Of  course  he  should  be  held 
responsible  for  that  abuse. 

Then  follows  the  great  clause  in  the  Constitution  of 
1844 — more  important  than  any  other  clause  in  that 
instrument — a  clause  that  shines  in  that  Constitution 
like  a  star  at  night. — 

“No  law  shall  be  passed  to  restrain  or  abridge  the 
liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press.” 

Can  anything  be  plainer  —  anything  more  forcibly 
stated  ? 

“No  law  shall  be  passed  to  abridge  the  liberty  of 
speech.  ’  ’ 

Now  while  you  are  considering  this  statute,  I  want 
you  to  keep  in  mind  this  other  statement : 

“No  law  shall  be  passed  to  restrain  or  abridge  the 
liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press.” 

And  right  here  there  is  another  thing  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to.  There  is  a  Constitution  higher  than 
any  statute.  There  is  a  law  higher  than  an)^  Constitu¬ 
tion.  It  is  the  law  of  the  human  conscience,  and  no 
man  who  is  a  man  will  defile  and  pollute  his  conscience 
at  the  bidding  of  any  legislature .  Above  all  things  one 
shonld  maintain  his  self-respect,  and  there  is  but  one 
way  to  do  that,  and  that  is  to  live  in  accordance  with 
your  highest  ideal. 


20 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


There  is  a  law  higher  than  men  can  make.  The  facts 
as  they  exist  in  this  poor  world — the  absolute  conse¬ 
quences  of  certain  acts — they  are  above  all.  And  this 
higher  law  is  the  breath  of  progress,  the  very  out¬ 
stretched  wings  of  civilization,  under  which  we  enjoy 
the  freedom  we  have.  Keep  that  in  your  minds.  There 
never  was  a  legislature  great  enough — there  never  was 
a  Constitution  sacred  enough,  to  compel  a  civilized 
man  to  stand  between  a  black  man  and  his  liberty. 
There  never  was  a  Constitution  great  enough  to  make 
me  stand  between  any  human  being  and  his  right  to 
express  his  honest  thoughts.  Such  a  Constitution  is  an 
insult  to  the  human  soul,  and  I  would  care  no  more  for 
it  than  I  would  for  the  growl  of  a  wild  beast.  But  we 
are  not  driven  to  that  necessity  here.  This  Constitution 
is  in  accord  with  the  highest  and  noblest  aspirations  of 
the  heart  —  “No  law  shall  be  passed  to  restrain  or 
abridge  the  liberty  of  speech.” 

Now  let  us  come  to  this  old  law — this  law  that  was 
asleep  for  a  hundred  years  before  this  Constitution  was 
adopted  —  this  law  coiled  like  a  snake  beneath  the 
foundations  of  the  government  —  this  law,  cowardly, 
dastardly — this  law  passed  by  wretches  who  were  afraid 
to  discuss — this  law  passed  by  men  who  could  not,  and 
who  knew  they  could  not,  defend  their  creed — and  so 
they  said  :  ‘  ‘  Give  us  the  sword  of  the  State  and  we  will 
cleave  the  heretic  down.”  And  this  law  was  made  to 
control  the  minority.  When  the  Catholics  were  in 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


ai 


power  they  visited  that  law  upon  their  opponents. 
When  the  Episcopalians  were  in  power,  they  tortured 
and  burned  the  poor  Catholic  who  had  scoffed  and  who 
had  denied  the  truth  of  their  religion.  Whoever  was 
in  power  used  that,  and  whoever  was  out  of  power 
cursed  that — and  yet,  the  moment  he  got  in  power  he 
used  it.  The  people  became  civilized — but  that  law 
was  on  the  statute  book.  It  simply  remained.  There 
it  was,  sound  asleep  —  its  lips  drawn  Over  its  long  and 
cruel  teeth.  Nobody  savage  enough  to  waken  it. 
And  it  slept  on,  and  New  Jersey  has  flourished.  Men 
have  done  well.  You  have  had  average  health  in  this 
country.  Nobody  roused  the  statute  until  the  defendant 
in  this  case  went  to  Boonton,  and  there  made  a  speech 
in  which  he  gave  his  honest  thought,  and  the  people 
not  having  an  argument  handy,  threw  stones.  There¬ 
upon  Mr.  Reynolds,  the  defendant,  published  a  pamphlet 
on  Blasphemy  and  in  it  gave  a  photograph  of  the  Boon- 
ton  Christians.  That  is  his  offence.  Now  let  us  read 
this  infamous  statute  : 

“If  any  person  shall  wilfully  blaspheme  the  holy 
name  of  God  by  denying,  cursing,  or  contumeliously 
reproaching  his  being”  — 

I  want  to  say  right  here — many  a  man  has  cursed  the 
God  of  another  man.  The  Catholics  have  cursed  the 
God  of  the  Protestant.  The  Presbyterians  have  cursed 
the  God  of  the  Catholics — charged  them  with  idolatry 
— cursed  their  images,  laughed  at  their  ceremonies. 


22 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


And  these  compliments  have  been  interchanged  between 
all  the  religions  of  the  world.  But  I  say  here  to-day 
that  no  man,  unless  a  raving  maniac,  ever  cursed  the 
God  in  whom  he  believed.  No  man,  no  human  being, 
has  ever  lived  who  cursed  his  own  idea  of  God.  He 
always  curses  the  idea  that  somebody  else  entertains. 
No  human  being  ever  yet  cursed  what  he  believed  to  be 
infinite  wisdom  and  infinite  goodness — and  you  know 
it.  Every  man  on  this  jury  knows  that.  He  feels  that 
that  must  be  an  absolute  certainty.  Then  what  have 
they  cursed?  Some  God  they  did  not  believe  in — that 
is  all.  And  has  a  man  that  right  ?  I  say  yes.  He  has 
a  right  to  give  his  opinion  of  Jupiter,  and  there  is 
nobody  in  Morristown  who  will  deny  him  that  right. 
But  several  thousand  years  ago  it  would  have  been  very 
dangerous  for  him  to  have  cursed  Jupiter,  and  yet 
Jupiter  is  just  as  powerful  now  as  he  was  then,  but  the 
Roman  people  are  not  powerful,  and  that  is  all  there 
was  to  Jupiter — the  Roman  people. 

So  there  was  a  time  when  you  could  have  cursed  Zeus, 
the  god  of  the  Greeks,  and  like  Socrates,  they  would  have 
compelled  you  to  drink  hemlock.  Yet  now  everybody 
can  curse  this  god.  Why?  Is  the  god  dead ?  No.  He 
is  just  as  alive  as  he  ever  was.  Then  what  has  happened  ? 
The  Greeks  have  passed  away.  That  is  all.  So  in  all 
of  our  Churches  here.  Whenever  a  Church  is  in  the 
minority  it  clamors  for  free  speech.  When  it  gets  in 
the  majority,  no.  I  do  not  believe  the  history  of  the 


MR.  INGERSOLIv’S  ARGUMENT.  23 

world  will  show  that  any  orthodox  Church  when  in  the 
majority  ever  had  the  courage  to  face  the  free  lips  of  the 
world.  It  sends  for  a  constable.  And  is  it  not  wonder¬ 
ful  that  they  should  do  this  when  they  preach  the  gospel 
of  universal  forgiveness — when  they  say,  “  if  a  man 
strike  you  on  one  cheek  turn  to  him  the  other  also  ’  ’  — 
but  if  he  laughs  at  your  religion,  put  him  in  the  peni¬ 
tentiary  ?  Is  that  the  doctrine  ?  Is  that  the  law  ? 

Now  read  this  law.  Do  you  know  as  I  read  this  law 
I  can  almost  hear  John  Calvin  laugh  in  his  grave. 
That  would  have  been  a  delight  to  him.  It  is  written 
exactly  as  he  would  have  written  it.  There  never  was 
an  inquisitor  who  would  not  have  read  that  law  with  a 
malicious  smile.  The  Christians  who  brought  the  fagots 
and  ran  with  all  their  might  to  be  at  the  burning,  would 
have  enjoyed  that  law.  You  know  that  when  they  used 
to  burn  people  for  having  said  something  against  re¬ 
ligion,  they  used  to  cut  their  tongues  out  before  they 
burned  them.  Why?  For  fear  that  if  they  did  not, 
the  poor  burning  victims  might  say  something  that 
would  scandalize  the  Christian  gentlemen  who  were 
building  the  fire.  All  these  persons  would  have  been 
delighted  with  this  law. 

Let  us  read  a  little  further  : 

“  —  Or  by  cursing  or  contumeliously  reproaching 
Jesus  Christ.” 

Why,  whoever  did,  since  the  poor  man,  or  the  poor 
God,  was  crucified?  How  did  they  come  to  crucify 


24 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


him?  Because  they  did  not  believe  in  free  speech  in 
Jerusalem.  How  else?  Because  there  was  a  law  against 
blasphemy  in  Jerusalem — a  law  exactly  like  this.  Just 
think  of  it,  O,  I  tell  you  we  have  passed  too  many 
milestones  on  the  shining  road  of  human  progress  to 
turn  back  and  wallow  in  that  blood,  in  that  mire. 

No.  Some  men  have  said  that  he  was  simply  a  man. 
Some  believed  that  he  was  actually  a  God.  Others 
believed  that  he  was  not  only  a  man,  but  that  he  stood 
as  the  representative  of  infinite  love  and  wisdom.  No 
man  ever  said  one  word  against  that  being  for  saying 
“  Do  unto  others  as  ye  would  that  others  should  do  unto 
you.”  No  man  ever  raised  his  voice  against  him  be¬ 
cause  he  said  ‘  ‘  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall 
obtain  mercy.  ’  ’  And  are  they  the  ‘  ‘  merciful  ’  ’  who 
when  some  man  endeavors  to  answer  their  argument, 
put  him  in  the  penitentiary?  No.  The  trouble  is,  the 
priests — the  trouble  is,  the  ministers — the  trouble  is, 
the  people  whose  business  it  was  to  tell  the  meaning  of 
these  things,  quarreled  with  each  other  and  they  put 
meanings  upon  human  expressions  by  malice,  meanings 
that  the  words  will  not  bear.  And  let  me  be  just  to 
them.  I  believe  that  nearly  all  that  has  been  done  in 
this  world  has  been  honestly  done.  I  believe  that  the 
poor  savage  who  kneels  down  and  prays  to  a  stuflfed 
snake — prays  that  his  little  children  may  recover  from 
the  fever — is  honest,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  a  good 
God  would  answer  his  prayer  if  he  could,  if  it  was  in 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument. 


25 


accordance  witli  wisdom,  because  the  poor  savage  was 
doing  the  best  he  could,  and  no  one  can  do  any  better 
than  that. 

So  I  believe  that  the  Presbyterians  who  used  to  think 
that  nearly  everybody  was  going  to  hell,  said  exactly 
what  they  believed.  They  were  honest  about  it,  and  I 
would  not  send  one  of  them  to  jail — would  never  think 
of  such  a  thing — even  if  he  called  the  unbelievers  of 
the  world  “wretches,”  “dogs,”  and  “devils.”  What 
would  I  do?  I  would  simply  answer  him — that  is  all  ; 
answer  him  kindly .  I  might  laugh  at  him  a  little,  but 
I  would  answer  him  in  kindness. 

So  these  divisions  of  the  human  mind  are  natural. 
They  are  a  necessity.  Do  you  know  that  all  the 
mechanics  that  ever  lived  —  take  the  best  ones — can¬ 
not  make  two  clocks  that  will  run  exactly  alike  one 
hour,  one  minute  ?  They  cannot  make  two  pendulums 
that  will  beat  in  exactly  the  same  time,  one  beat.  If 
you  cannot  do  that,  how  are  you  going  to  make 
hundreds,  thousands,  billions  of  people,  each  with  a 
different  quality  and  quantity  of  brain,  each  clad  in  a 
robe  of  living,  quivering  flesh,  and  each  driven  by 
passion’s  storm  over  the  wild  sea  of  life — how  are  you 
going  to  make  them  all  think  alike?  This  is  the 
impossible  thing  that  Christian  ignorance  and  bigotry 
and  malice  have  been  trying  to  do.  This  was  the 
object  of  the  Inquisition  and  of  the  foolish  legislature 
that  passed  this  statute. 


26  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

lyCt  me  read  you  another  line  from  this  ignorant 
statute :  — 

“Or  the  Christian  religion,” 

Well,  what  is  the  Christian  religion?  “If  you  scoflF 
at  the  Christian  religion — if  you  curse  the  Christian 
religion.  ’  ’  Well  what  is  it  ?  Gentlemen,  you  hear  Pres¬ 
byterians  every  day  attack  the  Catholic  Church.  Is  that 
the  Christian  religion  ?  The  Catholic  believes  it  is  the 
Christian  religion,  and  you  have  to  admit  that  it  is  the 
oldest  one,  and  then  the  Catholics  turn  round  and  scoff 
at  the  Protestants.  Is  that  the  Christian  religion?  If 
so,  every  Christian  religion  has  been  cnrsed  by  every 
other  Christian  religion.  Is  not  that  an  absurd  and 
foolish  statute  ? 

I  say  that  the  Catholic  has  the  right  to  attack  the 
Presbyterian  and  tell  him,  “Your  doctrine  is  all  wrong,” 
I  think  he  has  the  right  to  say  to  him,  “  You  are  lead¬ 
ing  thousands  to  hell.”  If  he  believes  it,  he  not  only 
has  the  right  to  say  it,  but  it  is  his  duty  to  say  it ;  and 
if  the  Presbyterian  really  believes  the  Catholics  are  all 
going  to  the  devil,  it  is  his  duty  to  say  so.  Why  not  ? 
I  will  never  have  any  religion  that  I  cannot  defend  — 
that  is,  that  I  do  not  believe  I  can  defend.  I  may  be 
mistaken,  because  no  man  is  absolutely  certain  that  he 
knows.  We  all  understand  that.  Every  one  is  liable 
to  be  mistaken.  The  horizon  of  each  individual  is 
very  narrow,  and  in  his  poor  sky  the  stars  are  few  and 
very  small. 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument. 


27 


“  Or  the  word  of  God, — ” 

What  is  that? 

“  The  canonical  Scriptures  contained  in  the  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments N 

Now  what  has  a  man  the  right  to  say  about  that? 
Has  he  the  right  to  show  that  the  book  of  Revelation 
got  into  the  canon  by  one  vote,  and  one  only  ?  Has  he 
the  right  to  show  that  they  passed  in  convention  upon 
what  books  they  would  put  in  and  what  they  would 
not  ?  Has  he  the  right  to  show  that  there  were  twenty- 
eight  books  called  “The  Books  of  the  Hebrews?”  Has 
he  the  right  to  show  that?  Has  he  the  right  to  show 
that  Martin  Ruther  said  he  did  not  believe  there  was 
one  solitary  word  of  gospel  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  ?  Has  he  the  right  to  show  that  some  of  these 
books  were  not  written  till  nearly  two  hundred  years 
afterwards  ?  Has  he  the  right  to  say  it,  if  he  believes 
it  ?  I  do  not  say  whether  this  is  true  or  not,  but  has  a 
man  the  right  to  say  it  if  he  believes  it  ? 

Now  suppose  I  should  read  the  bible  all  through  right 
here  in  Morristown,  and  after  I  got  through  I  should 
make  up  my  mind  that  it  is  not  a  true  book — what 
ought  I  to  say?  Ought  I  to  clap  my  hand  over  my 
mouth  and  start  for  another  State,  and  the  minute  I  got 
over  the  line  say,  “It  is  not  true.  It  is  not  true ? ’ ’  Or, 
ought  I  to  have  the  right  and  privilege  of  saying  right 
here  in  New  Jersey,  “My  fellow  citizens,  I  have  read 
the  book — I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  word  of  Gk)d?” 


28 


MR,  ingersoll’s  argument. 


Suppose  I  read  it  and  think  it  is  true,  then  I  am  bound 
to  say  so.  If  I  should  go  to  Turkey  and  read  the  Koran 
and  make  up  my  mind  that  it  is  false,  you  would  all  say 
that  I  was  a  miserable  poltroon  if  I  did  not  say  so. 

By  force  you  can  make  hypocrites — men  who  will 
agree  with  you  from  the  teeth  out,  and  in  their  hearts 
hate  you.  We  want  no  more  hypocrites.  We  have 
enough  in  eveiy^  community.  And  how  are  you  going 
to  keep  from  having  more  ?  By  having  the  air  free,  — 
by  wiping  from  your  statute  books  such  miserable  and 
infamous  laws  as  this. 

“  The  Holy  Scriptures.'''' 

Are  they  holy  ?  Must  a  man  be  honest  ?  Has  he  the 
right  to  be  sincere  ?  There  are  thousands  of  things  in 
the  Scriptures  that  everybody  believes.  Everybody 
believes  the  Scriptures  are  right  when  they  say,  “Thou 
shalt  not  steal” — everybody.  And  when  they  say 
‘  ‘  Give  good  measure,  heaped  up  and  running  over,  ’  ’ 
everybody  says,  ‘  ‘  Good  !  ”  So  when  they  say  ‘  ‘  Love 
your  neighbor,”  everybody  applauds  that.  Suppose  a 
man  believes  that,  and  practices  it,  does  it  make  any 
difference  whether  he  believes  in  the  flood  or  not?  Is 
that  of  any  importance  ?  Whether  a  man  built  an  ark 
or  not — does  that  make  the  slightest  difference?  A 
man  might  deny  it  and  yet  be  a  very  good  man. 
Another  might  believe  it  and  be  a  very  mean  man. 
Could  it  now,  by  any  possibility,  make  a  man  a  good 
father,  a  good  husband,  a  good  citizen  ?  Does  it  make 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


29 


any  diflference  whether  you  believe  it  or  not?  Does  it 
make  any  diflference  whether  or  not  you  believe  that 
a  man  was  going  through  town  and  his  hair  was  a 
little  short,  like  mine,  and  some  little  children  laughed 
at  him,  and  thereupon  two  bears  from  the  woods  came 
down  and  tore  to  pieces  about  forty  of  these  children? 
Is  it  necessary  to  believe  that  ?  Suppose  a  man  should 
say,  “I  guess  that  is  a  mistake.  They  did  not  copy 
that  right.  I  guess  the  man  that  reported  that  was  a 
little  dull  of  hearing  and  did  not  get  the  story  exactly 
right.”  Any  harm  in  saying  that?  Is  a  man  to  be 
sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  that?  Can  you  imagine 
an  infinitely  good  God  sending  a  man  to  hell  because 
he  did  not  believe  the  bear  story  ? 

So  I  say  if  you  believe  the  bible,  say  so  ;  if  you  do 
not  believe  it,  say  so.  And  here  is  the  vital  mistake, 
I  might  almost  say,  in  Protestantism  itself.  The 
Protestants  when  they  fought  the  Catholics  said : 
“Read  the  bible  for  yourselves — stop  taking  it  from 
your  priests — read  the  sacred  volume  with  your  own 
eyes.  It  is  a  revelation  from  God  to  his  children,  and 
you  are  the  children.  ”  And  then  they  said:  “If  after 
you  read  it  you  do  not  believe  it,  and  you  say  anything 
against  it,  we  will  put  you  in  jail,  and  God  will  put 
you  in  hell.”  That  is  a  fine  position  to  get  a  man  in. 
It  is  like  a  man  who  invited  his  neighbor  to  come 
and  look  at  his  pictures,  saying  :  ‘  ‘  They  are  the  finest 
in  the  place,  and  I  want  your  candid  opinion.  A  man 


30  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

who  looked  at  them  the  other  day  said  they  were  daubs, 
and  I  kicked  him  down  stairs — now  I  want  your  candid 
judgment.”  So  the  Protestant  Church  says  to  a  man, 
‘‘This  bible  is  a  message  from  your  Father, — your 
Father  in  heaven.  Read  it.  Judge  for  yourself.  But  if 
after  you  have  read  it  you  say  it  is  not  true,  I  will  put 
you  in  the  penitentiary  for  one  year.”  The  Catholic 
Church  has  a  little  more  sense  about  that — at  least 
more  logic.  It  says  :  “  This  bible  is  not  given  to  every¬ 
body.  It  is  given  to  the  world,  to  be  sure,  but  it  must 
be  interpreted  by  the  Church.  God  would  not  give  a 
bible  to  the  world  unless  he  also  appointed  some  one, 
some  organization,  to  tell  the  world  what  it  means.” 
They  said:  “We  do  not  want  the  world  filled  with 
interpretations,  and  all  the  interpreters  fighting  each 
other.”  And  the  Protestant  has  gone  to  the  infinite 
absurdity  of  saying  :  “Judge  for  yourself,  but  if  you 
judge  wrong  you  will  go  to  the  penitentiary  here  and 
to  hell  hereafter.” 

Now  let  us  see  further : 

“  Or  by  profane  scoffing  expose  them  to  ridiculed 

Think  of  such  a  law  as  that,  passed  under  a  Consti¬ 
tution  that  says,  “No  law  shall  abridge  the  liberty  of 
speech.”  But  you  must  not  ridicule  the  Scriptures, 
Did  anybody  ever  dream  of  passing  a  law  to  protect 
Shakespeare  from  being  laughed  at?  Did  anybody 
ever  think  of  such  a  thing?  Did  anybody  ever  want 
any  legislative  enactment  to  keep  people  from  holding 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  3 1 

Robert  Burns  in  contempt?  The  songs  of  Bums  will 
be  sung  as  long  as  there  is  love  in  the  human  heart. 
Do  we  need  to  protect  him  from  ridicule  by  a  statute? 
Does  he  need  assistance  from  New  Jersey?  Is  any 
statute  needed  to  keep  Euclid  from  being  laughed  at 
in  this  neighborhood?  And  is  it  possible  that  a  work 
written  by  an  infinite  being  has  to  be  protected  by  a 
legislature  ?  Is  it  possible  that  a  book  cannot  be  written 
by  a  God  so  that  it  will  not  excite  the  laughter  of  the 
human  race  ? 

Why  gentlemen,  humor  is  one  of  the  most  valuable 
things  in  the  human  brain.  It  is  the  torch  of  the 
mind — it  sheds  light.  Humor  is  the  readiest  test  of 
tmth — of  the  natural,  of  the  sensible — and  when  you 
take  from  a  man  all  sense  of  humor,  there  will  only 
be  enough  left  to  make  a  bigot.  Teach  this  man  who 
has  no  humor — no  sense  of  the  absurd — the  Presby¬ 
terian  creed,  fill  his  darkened  brain  with  superstition 
and  his  heart  with  hatred — then  frighten  him  with 
the  threat  of  hell,  and  he  will  be  ready  to  vote  for  that 
statute.  Such  men  made  that  law. 

Let  us  read  another  clause  : — 

And  every  person  so  offending  shall^  on  conviction^ 
be  fined  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars^  or  im¬ 
prisoned  at  hard  labor  not  exceeding  twelve  months^  or 
bothy 

I  want  you  to  remember  that  this  statute  was  passed 
in  England  hundreds  of  years  ago — just  in  that 


32 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


language.  The  punishment,  however,  has  been  some¬ 
what  changed.  In  the  good  old  days  when  the  king 
sat  on  the  throne — in  the  good  old  days  when  the 
altar  was  the  right-bower  of  the  throne — then,  instead 
of  saying  :  ‘  ‘  fined  two  hundred  dollars  and  imprisoned 
one  year,”  it  was  :  “  All  his  goods  shall  be  confiscated  ; 
his  tongue  shall  be  bored  with  a  hot  iron,  and  upon  his 
forehead  he  shall  be  branded  with  the  letter  B  ;  and  for 
the  second  offence  he  shall  suffer  death  by  burning.” 
Those  were  the  good  old  days  when  people  maintained 
the  orthodox  religion  in  all  its  purity  and  in  all  its 
ferocity. 

The  first  question  for  you,  gentlemen,  to  decide  in 
this  case  is  ;  Is  this  statute  constitutional  ?  Is  this 
statute  in  harmony  with  that  part  of  the  Constitution 
of  1844  which  says  :  “The  liberty  of  speech  shall  not 
be  abridged?”  That  is  for  you  to  say.  Is  this  law 
constitutional,  or  is  it  simply  an  old  statute  that  fell 
asleep,  that  was  forgotten,  that  people  simply  failed 
to  repeal?  I  believe  I  can  convince  you,  if  you  will 
think  a  moment,  that  our  fathers  never  intended  to 
establish  a  government  like  that.  When  they  fought 
for  what  they  believed  to  be  religious  liberty — when 
they  fought  for  what  they  believed  to  be  liberty  of 
speech,  they  believed  that  all  such  statutes  would  be 
wiped  from  the  statute  books  of  all  the  States. 

Let  me  tell  you  another  reason  why  I  believe  this. 
We  have  in  this  country  naturalization  laws.  Persons 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument.  33 

may  come  here  irrespective  of  their  religion.  They 
must  simply  swear  allegiance  to  this  country — they 
must  forswear  allegiance  to  every  other  potentate, 
prince  and  power — but  they  do  not  have  to  change 
their  religion,  A  Hindoo  may  become  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  like  the  Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  guarantees 
religious  liberty.  That  Hindoo  believes  in  a  God — 
in  a  God  that  no  Christian  does  believe  in.  He  believes 
in  a  sacred  book  that  every  Christian  looks  upon  as  a 
collection  of  falsehoods.  He  believes,  too,  in  a  Saviour 
—  in  Buddha.  Now  I  ask  you,  — when  that  man  comes 
here  and  becomes  a  citizen — when  the  Constitution  is 
about  him,  above  him — has  he  the  right  to  give  his 
ideas  about  his  religion  ?  Has  he  the  right  to  say  in 
New  Jersey:  “There  is  no  God  except  the  Supreme 
Brahm — there  is  no  Saviour  except  Buddha  the  Illu¬ 
minated,  Buddha  the  Blest?”  I  say  that  he  has  that 
right — and  you  have  no  right,  because  in  addition  to 
that  he  says,  “You  are  mistaken;  your  God  is  not 
God  ;  your  bible  is  not  trne,  and  your  religion  is  a 
mistake,”  to  abridge  his  liberty  of  speech.  He  has 
the  right  to  say  it,  and  if  he  has  the  right  to  say  it,  I  in¬ 
sist  before  this  Court  and  before  this  jury,  that  he  has 
the  right  to  give  his  reasons  for  saying  it ;  and  in 
giving  those  reasons,  in  maintaining  his  side,  he  has 
the  right,  not  simply  to  appeal  to  history,  not  simply  to 
the  masonry  of  logic,  but  he  has  the  right  to  shoot  the 


34  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

arrows  of  wit,  and  to  use  the  smile  of  ridicule.  Any¬ 
thing  that  can  be  laughed  out  of  this  world  ought  not 
to  stay  in  it. 

So  the  Persian — the  believer  in  Zoroaster,  in  the 
spirits  of  Good  and  Evil,  and  that  the  spirit  of  Evil 
will  finally  triumph  forever — if  that  is  his  religion  — 
has  the  right  to  state  it,  and  the  right  to  give  his 
reasons  for  his  belief.  How  infinitely  preposterons  for 
you,  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  to  invite  a  Persian 
or  a  Hindoo  to  come  to  your  shores.  You  do  not  ask 
him  to  renounce  his  God.  You  ask  him  to  renounce 
the  Shah.  Then  when  he  becomes  a  citizen,  having 
the  rights  of  every  other  citizen,  he  has  the  right  to 
defend  his  religion  and  to  denounce  yours. 

There  is  another  thing.  What  was  the  spirit  of  our 
government  at  that  time?  You  must  look  at  the  lead¬ 
ing  men.  Who  were  they?  What  were  their  opinions  ? 
Were  most  of  them  as  guilty  of  blasphemy  as  is  the 
defendant  in  this  case?  Thomas  Jefferson — and  there 
is  in  my  judgment  only  one  name  on  the  page  of 
American  history  greater  than  his — only  one  name 
for  which  I  have  a  gfreater  and  a  tenderer  reverence  — 
and  that  is  Abraham  Lincoln,  because  of  all  men  who 
ever  lived  and  had  power,  he  was  the  most  merciful. 
And  that  is  the  way  to  test  a  man.  How  does  he  use 
power?  Does  he  want  to  crush  his  fellow  citizens? 
Does  he  like  to  lock  somebody  up  in  the  penitentiary 
because  he  has  the  power  of  the  moment?  Does  he 


MR.  INGERSOLIv’S  ARGUMENT.  35 

wish  to  use  it  as  a  despot,  or  as  a  philanthropist — 
like  a  devil,  or  like  a  man? 

Thomas  Jefferson  entertained  about  the  same  views 
entertained  by  the  defendant  in  this  case,  and  he  was 
made  President  of  the  United  States.  He  was  the 
author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  founder  of 
the  University  of  Virginia,  writer  of  that  clause  in 
the  Constitution  of  that  State  that  made  all  the  citizens 
equal  before  the  law.  And  when  I  come  to  the  very 
sentences  here  charged  as  blasphemy,  I  will  show  you 
that  these  were  the  common  sentiments  of  thousands 
of  very  great,  of  very  intellectual  and  admirable 
men. 

I  have  no  time,  and  it  may  be  this  is  not  the  place 
and  the  occasion,  to  call  your  attention  to  the  infinite 
harm  that  has  been  done  in  almost  every  religious 
nation  by  statutes  such  as  this.  Where  that  statute 
is,  liberty  can  not  be  ;  and  if  this  statute  is  enforced 
by  this  jury  and  by  this  Court,  and  if  it  is  afterwards 
carried  out,  and  if  it  could  be  carried  out  in  the  States 
of  this  Union,  there  would  be  an  end  of  all  intellectnal 
progress.  We  would  go  back  to  the  dark  ages.  Every 
man’s  mind,  upon  these  subjects  at  least,  would  become 
a  stagnant  pool,  covered  with  the  scum  of  prejudice 
and  meanness. 

And  wherever  such  laws  have  been  enforced,  have 
the  people  been  friends?  Here  we  are  to-day  in  this 
blessed  air — here  amid  these  happy  fields.  Can  we 


36  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

imagine,  with  these  surroundings,  that  a  man  for  having 
been  found  with  a  crucifix  in  his  poor  little  home  had 
been  taken  from  his  wife  and  children  and  burned — 
burned  by  Protestants?  You  cannot  conceive  of  such 
a  thing  now.  Neither  can  you  conceive  that  there  was 
a  time  when  Catholics  found  some  poor  Protestant  con¬ 
tradicting  one  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Church,  and  took 
that  poor  honest  wretch — while  his  wife  wept — while 
his  children  clung  to  his  hands — to  the  public  square, 
drove  a  stake  in  the  ground,  put  a  chain  or  two  about 
him,  lighted  the  fagots,  and  let  the  wife  whom  he  loved 
and  his  little  children  see  the  flames  climb  around  his 
limbs — you  cannot  imagine  that  any  such  infamy  was 
ever  practiced.  And  yet  I  tell  you  that  the  same  spirit 
made  this  detestable,  infamous,  devilish  statute. 

You  can  hardly  imagine  that  there  w^as  a  time  when 
the  same  kind  of  men  that  made  this  law  said  to  another 
man:  “You  say  this  world  is  round?”  “Yes,  sir;  I 
think  it  is,  because  I  have  seen  its  shadow  on  the 
moon.”  “You  have?”  —  Now  can  you  imagine  a 
society  outside  of  hyenas  and  boa  constrictors  that 
would  take  that  man,  put  him  iu  the  penitentiar)'^, 
in  a  dungeon,  turn  the  key  upon  him,  and  let  his  name 
be  blotted  from  the  book  of  human  life?  Years  after¬ 
ward  some  explorer  amid  ruins  finds  a  few  bones.  The 
same  spirit  that  did  that,  made  this  statute  —  the  same 
spirit  that  did  that,  went  before  the  grand  jury  in  this 
case — exactly.  Give  the  men  that  had  this  man  in- 


MR.  INGERS0I.L’S  ARGUMENT. 


37 


dieted  the  power,  and  I  would  not  want  to  live  in  that 
particular  part  of  the  country.  I  would  not  willingly 
live  with  such  men.  I  would  go  somewhere  else,  where 
the  air  is  free,  where  I  could  speak  my  sentiments  to 
my  wife,  to  my  children,  and  to  my  neighbors. 

Now  this  persecution  differs  only  in  degree  from  the 
infamies  of  the  olden  time.  What  does  it  mean?  It 
means  that  the  State  of  New  Jersey  has  all  the  light  it 
wants.  And  what  does  that  mean  ?  It  means  that  the 
State  of  New  Jersey  is  absolutely  infallible — that  it  has 
got  its  growth,  and  does  not  propose  to  grow  any 
more.  New  Jersey  knows  enough,  and  it  will  send 
teachers  to  the  penitentiary. 

It  is  hardly  possible  that  this  State  has  accomplished 
all  that  it  is  ever  going  to  accomplish.  Religions  are 
for  a  day.  They  are  the  clouds.  Humanity  is  the 
eternal  blue.  Religions  are  the  waves  of  the  sea. 
These  waves  depend  upon  the  force  and  direction  of 
the  wind — that  is  to  say,  of  passion  ;  but  Humanity 
is  the  great  sea.  And  so  our  religions  change  from 
day  to  day,  and  it  is  a  blessed  thing  that  they  do. 
Why?  Because  we  grow,  and  we  are  getting  a  little 
more  civilized  every  day,  — and  any  man  that  is  not 
willing  to  let  another  man  express  his  opinion,  is  not 
a  civilized  man,  and  you  know  it.  Any  man  that 
does  not  give  to  everybody  else  the  rights  he  claims 
for  himself,  is  not  an  honest  man. 

Here  is  a  man  who  says,  “I  am  going  to  join  the 


38  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

Methodist  Church.”  What  right  has  he?  Just  the 
same  right  to  join  it  that  I  have  not  to  join  it — no 
more,  no  less.  But  if  you  are  a  Methodist  and  I  am 
not,  it  simply  proves  that  you  do  not  agree  with  me, 
and  that  I  do  not  agree  with  you — that  is  all.  Another 
man  is  a  Catholic.  He  was  bom  a  Catholic,  or  is  con¬ 
vinced  that  Catholicism  is  right.  That  is  his  business, 
and  any  man  that  would  persecute  him  on  that  account, 
is  a  poor  barbarian — a  savage  ;  any  man  that  would 
abuse  him  on  that  account,  is  a  barbarian — a  savage. 

Then  I  take  the  next  step.  A  man  does  not  wish  to 
belong  to  any  church.  How  are  you  going  to  judge 
him?  Judge  him  by  the  way  he  treats  his  wife,  his 
children,  his  neighbors.  Does  he  pay  his  debts  ?  Does 
he  tell  the  tmth  ?  Does  he  help  the  poor  ?  Has  he  got 
a  heart  that  melts  when  he  hears  grief’s  story?  That  is 
the  way  to  judge  him.  I  do  not  care  what  he  thinks 
about  the  bears,  or  the  flood,  about  bibles  or  gods. 
When  some  poor  mother  is  found  wandering  in  the 
street  with  a  babe  at  her  breast,  does  he  quote  Scripture, 
or  hunt  for  his  pocket-book  ?  That  is  the  way  to  judge. 
And  suppose  he  does  not  believe  in  any  bible  whatever  ? 
If  Christianity  is  tme,  that  is  his  misfortune,  and 
everybody  should  pity  the  poor  wretch  that  is  going 
down  the  hill.  Why  kick  him?  You  will  get  your 
revenge  on  him  through  all  eternity  —  is  not  that 
enough  ? 

So  I  say,  let  us  judge  each  other  by  our  actions. 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument. 


39 


not  by  theories,  not  by  what  we  happen  to  believe — 
because  that  depends  very  much  on  where  we  were 
bom. 

If  you  had  been  bora  in  Turkey,  you  probably  would 
have  been  a  Mohammedan.  If  I  had  been  bora  among 
the  Hindoos,  I  might  have  been  a  Buddhist — I  can’t 
tell.  If  I  had  been  raised  in  Scotland,  on  oat  meal,  I 
might  have  been  a  Covenanter — nobody  knows.  If  I 
had  lived  in  Ireland,  and  seen  my  poor  wife  and  children 
driven  into  the  street,  I  think  I  might  have  been  a  Home 
Ruler — no  doubt  of  it.  You  see  it  depends  on  where 
you  were  bom — much  depends  on  our  surroundings. 

Of  course,  there  are  men  born  in  Turkey  who  are  not 
Mohammedans,  and  there  are  men  bora  in  this  country 
who  are  not  Christians — Methodists,  Unitarians,  or 
Catholics,  plenty  of  them,  who  are  unbelievers — plenty 
of  them  who  deny  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures — plenty 
of  them  who  say  :  “I  know  not  whether  there  be  a  God 
or  not.”  Well,  it  is  a  thousand  times  better  to  say  that 
honestly  than  to  say  dishonestly  that  you  believe  in  God. 

If  you  want  to  know  the  opinion  of  your  neighbor, 
you  want  his  honest  opinion.  You  do  not  want  to  be 
deceived.  You  do  not  want  to  talk  with  a  hypocrite. 
You  want  to  get  straight  at  his  honest  mind — and  then 
you  are  going  to  judge  him,  not  by  what  he  says  but  by 
what  he  does.  It  is  very  easy  to  sail  along  with  the 
majority — easy  to  sail  the  way  the  boats  are  going — 
easy  to  float  with  the  stream  ;  but  when  you  come  to 


40  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

swim  against  the  tide,  with  the  men  on  the  shore  throw¬ 
ing  rocks  at  you,  you  will  get  a  good  deal  of  exercise  in 
this  world. 

And  do  you  know  that  we  ought  to  feel  under  the 
greatest  obligation  to  men  who  have  fought  the  prevail¬ 
ing  notions  of  their  day  ?  There  is  not  a  Presbyterian 
in  Morristown  that  does  not  hold  up  for  admiration  the 
man  that  carried  the  flag  of  the  Presbyterians  when  they 
were  in  the  minority — not  one.  There  is  not  a  Metho¬ 
dist  in  this  state  who  does  not  admire  John  and  Charles 
Wesley  and  Whitefield,  who  carried  the  banner  of  that 
new  and  despised  sect  when  it  was  in  the  minority.  They 
glory  in  them  because  they  braved  public  opinion,  be¬ 
cause  they  dared  to  oppose  idiotic,  barbarous  and  savage 
statutes  like  this.  And  there  is  not  a  Universalist  that 
does  not  worship  dear  old  Hosea  Ballou — I  love  him 
myself — because  he  said  to  the  Presbyterian  minister; 
“  You  are  going  around  trying  to  keep  people  out  of 
hell,  and  I  am  going  around  tiydng  to  keep  hell  out 
of  the  people.”  Every  Universalist  admires  him  and 
loves  him  because  when  despised  and  railed  at  and  spit 
upon,  he  stood  firm,  a  patient  witness  for  the  eternal 
mercy  of  God.  And  there  is  not  a  solitaiy'^  Protestant 
who  does  not  honor  Martin  Luther  —  who  does  not 
honor  the  Covenanters  in  poor  Scotland,  and  that  poor 
girl  who  was  tied  out  on  the  sand  of  the  sea  by  Episco¬ 
palians,  and  kept  there  till  the  rising  tide  drowned  her, 
and  all  she  had  to  do  to  save  her  life  was  to  say,  “God 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument. 


41 


save  the  king  ’  but  she  would  not  say  it  without  the 
addition  of  the  words,  “If  it  be  God’s  will.”  No  one, 
who  is  not  a  miserable,  contemptible  wretch,  can  fail  to 
stand  in  admiration  before  such  courage,  such  self- 
denial — such  heroism.  No  matter  what  the  attitude 
of  your  body  may  be,  your  soul  falls  on  its  knees  before 
such  men  and  such  women. 

ket  us  take  another  step.  Where  would  we  have  been 
if  authority  had  always  triumphed  ?  Where  would  we 
have  been  if  such  statutes  had  always  been  carried  out  ? 
We  have  now  a  science  called  Astronomy.  That  science 
has  done  more  to  enlarge  the  horizon  of  human  thought 
than  all  things  else.  We  now  live  in  an  infinite  uni¬ 
verse.  We  know  that  the  sun  is  a  million  times  larger 
than  our  earth,  and  we  know  that  there  are  other  great 
luminaries  millions  of  times  larger  than  our  sun.  We 
know  that  there  are  planets  so  far  away  that  light,  travel¬ 
ing  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand 
miles  a  second,  requires  fifteen  thousand  years  to  reach 
this  grain  of  sand,  this  tear,  we  call  the  earth — and  we 
now  know  that  all  the  fields  of  space  are  sown  thick  with 
constellations.  If- that  statute  had  been  enforced,  that 
Science  would  not  now  be  the  property  of  the  human 
mind.  That  Science  is  contrary  to  the  bible,  and  for 
asserting  the  tmth  you  become  a  criminal.  For  what 
sum  of  money,  for  what  amount  of  wealth,  would  the 
world  have  the  science  of  Astronomy  expunged  from  the 
brain  of  man  ?  We  learned  the  story  of  the  stars  in  spite 
of  that  statute. 


42  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

The  first  men  who  said  the  world  was  round  were 
scourged  for  scofling  at  the  Scriptures.  And  even 
Martin  Luther,  speaking  of  one  of  the  greatest  men  that 
ever  lived,  said  :  “  Does  he  think  with  his  little  lever  to 
overturn  the  Universe  of  God?”  Martin  Luther  insisted 
that  such  men  ought  to  be  trampled  under  foot.  If  that 
statute  had  been  carried  into  effect,  Galileo  would  have 
been  impossible.  Kepler,  the  discoverer  of  the  three 
laws,  would  have  died  with  the  great  secret  locked  in  his 
brain,  and  mankind  would  have  been  left  ignorant,  su¬ 
perstitious,  and  besotted.  And  what  else?  If  that 
statute  had  been  carried  out,  the  world  would  have  been 
deprived  of  the  philosophy  of  Spinoza  ;  of  the  philoso¬ 
phy,  of  the  literature,  of  the  wit  and  wisdom,  the  justice 
and  mercy  of  Voltaire,  the  greatest  Frenchman  that 
ever  drew  the  breath  of  life — the  man  who  by  his 
mighty  pen  abolished  torture  in  a  nation,  and  helped 
to  civilize  a  world. 

If  that  statute  had  been  enforced,  nearly  all  the  books 
that  enrich  the  libraries  of  the  world  could  not  have 
been  written.  If  that  statute  had  been  enforced,  Hum¬ 
boldt  could  not  have  delivered  the  lectures  now  known 
as  “The  Cosmos.”  If  that  statute  had  been  enforced, 
Charles  Darwin  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  sive 
to  the  world  his  discoveries  that  have  been  of  more 
benefit  to  mankind  than  all  the  sermons  ever  uttered. 
In  England  they  have  placed  his  sacred  dust  in  the  great 
Abbey.  If  he  had  lived  in  New  Jersey,  and  this  statute 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument. 


43 


could  have  been  enforced,  he  would  have  lived  one  year 
at  least  in  your  penitentiary.  Why  ?  That  man  went 
so  far  as  not  simply  to  deny  the  truth  of  your  bible,  but 
absolutely  to  deny  the  existence  of  your  God.  Was  he 
a  good  man  ?  Yes,  one  of  the  noblest  and  greatest  of 
men.  Humboldt,  the  greatest  German  who  ever  lived, 
was  of  the  same  opinion. 

And  so  I  might  go  on  with  the  great  men  of  to-day. 
Who  are  the  men  who  are  leading  the  race  upward  and 
shedding  light  in  the  intellectual  world  ?  They  are  the 
men  declared  by  that  statnte  to  be  criminals.  Mr. 
Spencer  could  not  pnblish  his  books  in  the  State  of  New 
Jersey.  He  would  be  arrested,  tried,  and  imprisoned  ; 
and  yet  that  man  has  added  to  the  intellectual  wealth  of 
the  world. 

So  with  Huxley,  so  with  Tyndal,  so  with  Helmholz — 
so  with  the  greatest  thinkers  and  greatest  writers  of  mod¬ 
em  times. 

You  may  not  agree  with  these  men — and  what  does 
that  prove  ?  It  simply  proves  that  they  do  not  agree 
with  you — that  is  all.  Who  is  to  blame?  I  do  not 
know.  They  may  be  wrong,  and  you  may  be  right ;  but 
if  they  had  the  power,  and  put  you  in  the  penitentiary 
simply  because  you  differed  with  them,  they  would  be 
savages  ;  and  if  you  have  the  power  aud  imprison  men 
because  they  differ  from  you,  why  then,  of  course,  you 
are  savages. 

No  ;  I  believe  in  intellectual  hospitality.  I  love  men 


44  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

that  have  a  little  horizon  to  their  minds — a  little  sky,  a 
little  scope.  I  hate  anything  that  is  narrow  and  pinched 
and  withered  and  mean  and  crawling,  and  that  is  willing 
to  live  on  dust.  I  believe  in  creating  such  an  atmos¬ 
phere  that  things  will  burst  into  blossom.  I  believe  in 
good  will,  good  health,  good  fellowship,  good  feeling — 
and  if  there  is  any  God  on  the  earth,  or  in  heaven,  let  us 
hope  that  he  will  be  generous  and  g^and.  Do  you  not 
see  what  the  effect  will  be  ?  I  am  not  cursing  you  be¬ 
cause  you  are  a  Methodist,  and  not  damning  you  because 
you  are  a  Catholic,  or  because  you  are  an  Infidel — 
a  good  man  is  more  than  all  of  these.  The  grandest 
of  all  things  is  to  be  in  the  highest  and  noblest  sense 
a  man. 

Now  let  us  see  the  frightful  things  that  this  man,  the 
defendant  in  this  case,  has  done.  Det  me  read  the 
charges  against  him  as  set  out  in  this  indictment. 

I  shall  insist  that  this  statute  does  not  cover  any  pub¬ 
lication —  that  it  covers  simply  speech — not  in  writing, 
not  in  book  or  pamphlet.  Let  us  see  : 

“  This  bible  describes  God  as  so  loving  that  he  drowned 
the  whole  world  in  his  mad fury.  ’  ’ 

Well,  the  great  question  about  that  is,  is  it  true? 
Does  the  bible  describe  God  as  having  drowned  the 
whole  world  with  the  exception  of  eight  people  ?  Does 
it,  or  does  it  not?  I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any¬ 
body  in  this  county  who  has  really  read  the  bible,  but  I 
believe  the  story  of  the  flood  is  there.  It  does  say 


MR.  ingersolr’s  argument.  45 

that  God  destroyed  all  flesh,  and  that  he  did  so  because 
he  was  angry.  He  says  so  himself,  if  the  bible  be  true. 

The  defendant  has  simply  repeated  what  is  in  the 
bible.  The  bible  says  that  God  is  loving,  and  says 
that  he  drowned  the  world,  and  that  he  was  angry.  Is 
it  blasphemy  to  quote  from  the  ‘  ‘  Sacred  Scriptures  ?  ’  ’ 

‘  ‘  Because  it  was  so  much  worse  than  he^  knowing  all 
things^  ever  supposed  it  could  bed'' — 

Well,  the  bible  does  say  that  he  repented  having 
made  man.  Now  is  there  any  blasphemy  in  saying 
that  the  bible  is  true?  That  is  the  only  question.  It 
is  a  fact  that  God,  according  to  the  bible,  did  drown 
nearly  everybody.  If  God  knows  all  things,  he  must 
have  known  at  the  time  he  made  them  that  he  was 
going  to  drown  them.  Is  it  likely  that  a  being  of 
infinite  wisdom  would  deliberately  do  what  he  knew 
he  must  undo?  Is  it  blasphemy  to  ask  that  question? 
Have  you  a  right  to  think  about  it  at  all  ?  If  you  have, 
you  have  the  right  to  tell  somebody  what  you  think — 
if  not,  you  have  no  right  to  discuss  it,  no  right  to  think 
about  it.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  read  it  and  believe 
it — to  open  your  mouth  like  a  young  robin,  and 
swallow — worms  or  shingle  nails — no  matter  which. 
The  defendant  further  blasphemed  and  said  that :  — 
“H/z  all-wise^  unchangeable  God^  who  got  oict  of 
patience  with  a  world  which  was  just  what  his  own 
stupid  blundering  had  made  it^  knew  no  better  way 
out  of  the  muddle  than  to  destroy  it  by  drowning!  ’  ’ 


46 


MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 


Is  that  true?  Was  not  the  world  exactly  as  God 
made  it  ?  Certainly.  Did  he  not,  if  the  bible  is  true, 
drown  the  people?  He  did.  Did  he  know  he  would 
drown  them  when  he  made  them?  He  did.  Did  he 
know  they  ought  to  be  drowned  when  they  were  made? 
He  did.  Where,  then,  is  the  blasphemy  in  saying  so  ? 
There  is  not  a  minister  in  this  world  who  could  explain 
it — who  would  be  permitted  to  explain  it — under  this 
statute  And  yet  you  would  arrest  this  man  and  put 
him  in  the  penitentiar)^  But  after  you  lock  him  in 
the  cell,  there  remains  the  question  still.  Is  it  possible 
that  a  good  and  wise  God,  knowing  that  he  was  going 
to  drown  them,  made  millions  of  people  ?  What  did  he 
make  them  for?  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  pretend  to 
be  wise  enough  to  answer  that  question.  Of  course,  you 
cannot  answer  the  question.  Is  there  anything  blas¬ 
phemous  in  that  ?  Would  it  be  blasphemy  in  me  to  say 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  God  ever  made  men,  women 
and  children — mothers,  with  babes  clasped  to  their 
breasts,  and  then  sent  a  flood  to  fill  the  world  with  death  ? 

A  rain  lasting  for  forty  days — the  water  rising  hour 
by  hour,  and  the  poor  wretched  children  of  God  climb¬ 
ing  to  the  tops  of  their  houses — then  to  the  tops  of  the 
hills.  The  water  still  rising — no  mercy.  The  people 
climbing  higher  and  higher,  looking  to  the  mountains 
for  salvation — the  merciless  rain  still  falling,  the  in¬ 
exorable  flood  still  rising.  Children  falling  from  the 
arms  of  mothers — no  pity.  The  highest  hills  covered 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  47 

— infancy  and  old  age  mingling  in  death — the  cries 
of  women,  the  sobs  and  sighs  lost  in  the  roar  of  waves — 
the  heavens  still  relentless.  The  mountains  are  covered 
— a  shoreless  sea  rolls  round  the  world,  and  on  its 
billows  are  billions  of  corpses. 

This  is  the  greatest  crime  that  man  has  imagined, 
and  this  crime  is  called  a  deed  of  infinite  mercy. 

Do  you  believe  that?  I  do  not  believe  one  word  of 
it,  and  I  have  the  right  to  say  to  all  the  world  that  this 
is  false. 

If  there  be  a  good  God,  the  story  is  not  true.  If 
there  be  a  wise  God,  the  story  is  not  true.  Ought  an 
honest  man  to  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary  for  simply 
telling  the  truth? 

Suppose  we  had  a  statute  that  whoever  scoffed  at 
Science  —  whoever  by  profane  language  should  bring 
the  Rule  of  Three  into  contempt,  or  whoever  should 
attack  the  proposition  that  two  parallel  lines  will  never 
include  a  space,  should  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary — 
what  would  you  think  of  it  ?  It  would  be  just  as  wise 
and  just  as  idiotic  as  this. 

And  what  else  says  the  defendant? 

“  The  bib le- God  says  that  his  people  made  him 
jealous.'''  '''‘Provoked  him  to  anger.'" 

Is  that  true  ?  It  is.  If  it  is  true,  is  it  blasphemous  ? 

Det  us  read  another  line — 

"And  now  he  will  raise  the  mischief  with  them; 
that  his  anger  burns  like  hell." 


48  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

That  is  true.  The  bible  says  of  God — “My  anger 
burns  to  the  lowest  hell.”  And  that  is  all  that  the 
defendant  says.  Every  word  of  it  is  in  the  bible.  He 
simply  does  not  believe  it — and  for  that  reason  is  a 
“blasphemer.” 

I  say  to  you  now,  gentlemen,  — and  I  shall  argue  to 
the  Court, — that  there  is  not  in  what  I  have  read  a 
solitary  blasphemous  word — not  a  word  that  has  not 
been  said  in  hundreds  of  pulpits  in  the  Christian  world. 
Theodore  Parker,  a  Unitarian,  speaking  of  this  bible- 
God,  said  :  “Vishnu  with  a  necklace  of  skulls,  Vishnu 
with  bracelets  of  living,  hissing  serpents,  is  a  figure  of 
Love  and  Mercy  compared  to  the  God  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.”  That,  we  might  call  “blasphemy,”  but  not 
what  I  have  read. 

Let  us  read  on  :  — 

‘  ‘  He  would  destroy  them  all  were  it  not  that  he  feared 
the  wrath  of  the  enemy.'"' 

That  is  in  the  bible — word  for  word.  Then  the 
defendant  in  astonishment  says  : 

“  The  Almighty  God  afraid  of  his  enemies  !" 

That  is  what  the  bible  says.  What  does  it  mean? 
If  the  bible  is  true,  God  was  afraid. 

“  Can  the  mind  conceive  of  more  horrid  blasphemy?'"* 

Is  not  that  true  ?  If  God  be  infinitely  good  and  wise 
and  powerful,  is  it  possible  he  is  afraid  of  anything  ?  If 
the  defendant  had  said  that  God  was  afraid  of  his  ene¬ 
mies,  that  might  have  been  blasphemy — but  this  man 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  49 

says  the  bible  says  that,  and  you  are  asked  to  say  that  it 
is  blasphemy.  Now,  up  to  this  point  there  is  no 
blasphemy,  even  if  you  were  to  enforce  this  infamous 
statute — this  savage  law. 

“  The  Old  Testament  records  for  our  instruction  in 
morals  the  most  foul  and  bestial  instances  of fornication^ 
incest^  and  polygamy^  perpetrated  by  God's  own  saints^ 
and  the  New  Testament  indorses  these  lecherous  wretches 
as  examples  for  all  good  Christians  to  follow." 

Now  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  does 
uphold  polygamy?  Abraham  would  have  gotten  into 
trouble  in  New  Jersey — no  doubt  of  that.  Sarah  could 
have  obtained  a  divorce  in  this  state, — no  doubt  of  that. 
What  is  the  use  of  telling  a  falsehood  about  it  ?  Let  us 
tell  the  truth  about  the  patriarchs. 

Everybody  knows  that  the  same  is  true  of  Moses.  We 
have  all  heard  of  Solomon — a  gentleman  with  five  or 
six  hundred  wives,  and  three  or  four  hundred  other 
ladies  with  whom  he  was  acquainted.  This  is  simply 
what  the  defendant  says.  Is  there  any  blasphemy  about 
that  ?  It  is  only  the  truth.  If  Solomon  were  living  in 
the  United  States  to-day,  we  would  put  him  in  the  peni¬ 
tentiary.  You  know  that  under  the  Edmunds’  Mormon 
law  he  would  be  locked  up.  If  you  should  present  a 
petition  signed  by  his  eleven  hundred  wives,  you  could 
not  get  him  out. 

So  it  was  with  David.  There  are  some  splendid 
things  about  David,  of  course.  I  admit  that,  and  pay 


50  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

my  tribute  of  respect  to  his  courage — but  he  happened 
to  have  ten  or  twelve  wives  too  many,  so  he  shut  them 
up,  put  them  in  a  kind  of  penitentiary  and  kept  them 
there  till  they  died.  That  would  not  be  considered  good 
conduct  even  in  Morristown.  You  know  that.  Is  it  any 
harm  to  speak  of  it  ?  There  are  plenty  of  ministers  here 
to  set  it  right — thousands  of  them  all  over  the  country, 
every  one  with  his  chance  to  talk  all  day  Sunday  and 
nobody  to  say  a  word  back.  The  pew  cannot  reply  to 
the  pulpit,  you  know  ;  it  has  jnst  to  sit  there  and  take 
it.  If  there  is  any  harm  in  this,  if  it  is  not  true,  they 
ought  to  answer  it.  But  it  is  here,  and  the  only  answer 
is  an  indictment. 

I  say  that  Lot  was  a  bad  man.  So  I  say  of  Abraham, 
and  of  Jacob.  Did  you  ever  know  of  a  more  despicable 
fraud  practiced  by  one  brother  on  another  than  Jacob 
practiced  on  Esau?  My  sympathies  have  always  been 
with  Esau.  He  seemed  to  be  a  manly  man.  Is  it 
blasphemy  to  say  that  you  do  not  like  a  hypocrite,  a 
murderer,  or  a  thief,  because  his  name  is  in  the  bible  ? 
How  do  you  know  what  such  men  are  mentioned 
for?  May  be  they  are  mentioned  as  examples,  and 
you  certainly  ought  not  to  be  led  away  and  induced 
to  imagine  that  a  man  with  seven  hundred  wives  is  a 
pattern  of  domestic  propriety,  one  to  be  followed  by 
yourself  and  your  sons.  I  might  go  on  and  mention  the 
names  of  hnndreds  of  others  who  committed  every  con¬ 
ceivable  crime,  in  the  name  of  religion — who  declared 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument.  5 1 

war,  and  on  the  field  of  battle  killed  men,  women  and 
babes,  even  children  yet  unborn,  in  the  name  of  the  most 
merciful  God.  The  Bible  is  filled  with  the  names  and 
crimes  of  these  sacred  savages,  these  inspired  beasts. 
Any  man  who  says  that  a  God  of  love  commanded  the 
commission  of  these  crimes  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
mistaken.  If  there  be  a  God,  then  it  is  blasphemous  to 
charge  him  with  the  commission  of  crime. 

But  let  us  read  further  from  this  indictment : 

“  The  aforesaid  printed  document  contains  other  scan¬ 
dalous,  infamous  and  blasphemous  matters  and  things  to 
the  tenor  and  effect  following,  that  is  to  say” — 

Then  comes  this  particularly  blasphemous  line  : 

“  Now^  reader^  take  time  and  calmly  think  it  overy 
Gentlemen,  there  are  many  things  I  have  read  that  I 
should  not  have  expressed  in  exactly  the  same  language 
used  by  the  defendant,  and  many  things  that  I  am  going 
to  read  I  might  not  have  said  at  all,  but  the  defendant 
had  the  right  to  say  every  word  with  which  he  is  charged 
in  this  indictment.  He  had  the  right  to  gpve  his  honest 
thought,  no  matter  whether  any  human  being  agreed 
with  what  he  said  or  not,  and  no  matter  whether  any 
other  man  approved  of  the  manner  in  which  he  said 
these  things.  I  defend  his  right  to  speak,  whether  I 
believe  in  what  he  spoke  or  not,  or  in  the  propriety  of 
saying  what  he  did.  I  should  defend  a  man  just  as 
cheerfully  who  had  spoken  against  my  doctrine,  as  one 
who  had  spoken  against  the  popular  superstitions  of  my 


52  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

time.  It  would  make  no  difference  to  me  tow  unjust 
the  attack  was  upon  my  belief — how  maliciously  in¬ 
genious  ;  and  no  matter  how  sacred  the  conviction  that 
was  attacked,  I  would  defend  the  freedom  of  speech. 
And  why  ?  Because  no  attack  can  be  answered  by  force, 
no  argument  can  be  refuted  by  a  blow,  or  by  imprison¬ 
ment,  or  by  fine.  You  may  imprison  the  man,  but  the 
argument  is  free  ;  you  may  fell  the  man  to  the  earth, 
but  the  statement  stands. 

The  defendant  in  this  case  has  attacked  certain  beliefs, 
thought  by  the  Christian  world  to  be  sacred.  Yet,  after 
all,  nothing  is  sacred  but  the  truth,  and  by  truth  I  mean 
what  a  man  sincerely  and  honestly  believes.  The  de¬ 
fendant  says  : 

“  Take  time  to  calmly  think  it  over :  Was  a  Jewish 
^irl  the  mother  of  Gof  the  mother  of  your  God?"''' 

The  defendant  probably  asked  this  question  supposing 
that  it  must  be  answered  by  all  sensible  people  in  the 
negative.  If  the  Christian  religion  is  true,  then  a  Jewish 
girl  was  the  mother  of  Almighty  God.  Personally,  if 
the  doctrine  is  true,  I  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the 
statement  that  a  Jewish  maiden  was  the  mother  of  God. — 
Millions  believe  that  this  is  true — I  do  not  believe, — but 
who  knows  ?  If  a  God  came  from  the  throne  of  the 
universe,  came  to  this  world  and  became  the  child  of  a 
pure  and  loving  woman,  it  would  not  lessen,  in  my  eyes, 
the  dignity  or  the  greatness  of  that  God. 

There  is  no  more  perfect  picture  on  the  earth,  or 


MR.  ingersorl’s  argument.  53 

within  the  imagination  of  man,  than  a  mother  holding 
in  her  thrilled  and  happy  arms  a  child,  the  fruit  of  love. 

No  matter  how  the  statement  is  made,  the  fact  remains 
the  same.  A  Jewish  girl  became  the  mother  of  God. 
If  the  bible  is  true,  that  is  true,  and  to  repeat  it,  even 
according  to  your  law,  is  not  blasphemous,  and  to  doubt 
it,  or  to  express  the  doubt,  or  to  deny  it,  is  not  contrary 
to  your  Constitution. 

To  this  defendant  it  seemed  improbable  that  God 
was  ever  bom  of  woman,  was  ever  held  in  the  lap  of 
a  mother  ;  and  because  he  cannot  believe  this,  he  is 
charged  with  blasphemy.  Could  you  pour  contempt 
on  Shakespeare  by  saying  that  his  mother  was  a 
woman, — by  saying  that  he  was  once  a  poor  crying 
little  helpless  child  ?  Of  course  he  was  ;  and  he  after¬ 
wards  became  the  greatest  human  being  that  ever 
touched  the  earth, — the  only  man  whose  intellectual 
wings  have  reached  from  sky  to  sky  ;  and  he  was  once  a 
crying  babe.  What  of  it  ?  Does  that  cast  any  scorn  or 
contempt  upon  him  ?  Does  this  take  any  of  the  music 
from  “Midsummer  Night’s  Dream”? — any  of  the 
passionate  wealth  from  “Antony  and  Cleopatra,”  any 
philosophy  from  ‘  ‘  Macbeth,  ’  ’  any  intellectual  grandeur 
from  “King  Dear”?  On  the  contrary,  these  great  pro¬ 
ductions  of  the  brain  show  the  growth  of  the  dimpled 
babe,  give  every  mother  a  splendid  dream  and  hope  for 
her  child,  and  cover  every  cradle  with  a  sublime 
possibility. 


54  MR.  INGEE-SOLIv’S  ARGUMENT. 

The  defendant  is  also  charged  with  having  said  that 
“  God  cried  and  screamed.^' 

Why  not?  If  he  was  absolutely  a  child,  he  was 
like  other  children, — like  yours,  like  mine.  I  have 
seen  the  time,  when  absent  from  home,  that  I  would 
have  given  more  to  have  heard  my  children  cry,  than 
to  have  heard  the  finest  orchestra  that  ever  made  the 
air  burst  into  flower.  V/hat  if  God  did  cry  ?  It  simply 
shows  that  his  humanity  was  real  and  not  assumed, 
that  it  was  a  tragedy,  real,  and  not  a  poor  pretense. 
And  the  defendant  also  says  that  if  the  orthodox 
religion  be  true,  that  the 

“  God  of  the  Universe  kicked^  and  fiung  about  his 
little  armSy  and  made  aimless  dashes  into  space  with  his 
little  fists. 

Is  there  anything  in  this  that  is  blasphemous  ?  One 
of  the  best  pictures  I  ever  saw  of  the  Virgin  and  Child 
was  painted  by  the  Spaniard,  Murillo.  Christ  appears 
to  be  a  truly  natural,  chubby,  happy  babe.  Such  a 
picture  takes  nothing  from  the  majesty,  the  beauty,  or 
the  glory  of  the  incarnation. 

I  think  it  is  the  best  thing  about  the  Catholic  Church 
that  it  lifts  up  for  adoration  and  admiration,  a  mother,  — 
that  it  pays  what  it  calls  ‘  ‘  Divine  honors  ”  to  a  woman. 
There  is  certainly  goodness  in  that,  and  where  a  Church 
has  so  few  practices  that  are  good,  I  am  willing  to  point 
this  one  out.  It  is  the  one  redeeming  feature  about 
Catholicism  that  it  teaches  the  worship  of  a  woman. 


MR.  INGERSOI^L’S  ARGUMENT.  55 

The  defendant  says  more  about  the  childhood  of 
Christ.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  that 

He  was  found  staring  foolishly  at  his  own  little 
toes.  ’  ’ 

And  why  not?  The  bible  says,  that  “he  increased 
in  wisdom  and  stature.”  The  defendant  might  have 
referred  to  something  far  more  improbable.  In  the 
same  verse  in  which  St.  Luke  says  that  Jesus  increased 
in  wisdom  and  stature,  will  be  found  the  assertion  that 
he  increased  in  favor  with  God  and  man.  The  de¬ 
fendant  might  have  asked  how  it  was  that  the  love  of 
God  for  God  increased. 

But  the  defendant  has  simply  stated  that  the  child 
Jesus  grew,  as  other  children  grow  ;  that  he  acted  like 
other  children,  and  if  he  did,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  he  did  stare  at  his  own  toes.  I  have  laughed  many 
a  time  to  see  little  children  astonished  with  the  sight  of 
their  feet.  They  seem  to  wonder  what  on  earth  puts 
the  little  toes  in  motion.  Certainly  there  is  nothing 
blasphemous  in  supposing  that  the  feet  of  Christ 
amused  him,  precisely  as  the  feet  of  other  children 
have  amused  them.  There  is  nothing  blasphemous 
about  this  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  beautiful.  If  I  believed 
in  the  existence  of  God,  the  creator  of  this  world,  the 
being  who,  with  the  hand  of  infinity,  sowed  the  fields  of 
space  with  stars,  as  a  farmer  sows  his  grain,  I  should 
like  to  think  of  him  as  a  little  dimpled  babe,  over¬ 
flowing  with  joy,  sitting  upon  the  knees  of  a  loving 


56  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

mother.  The  ministers,  themselves,  might  take  a  lesson 
even  from  the  man  who  is  charged  with  blasphemy,  and 
make  an  effort  to  bring  an  infinite  God  a  little  nearer  to 
the  human  heart. 

The  defendant  also  says,  speaking  of  the  infant  Christ, 
“  He  was  nursed  at  Mary' s  breast.'" 

Yes,  and  if  the  story  be  true,  that  is  the  tender est  fact 
in  it.  Nursed  at  the  breast  of  woman.  No  painting,  no 
statue,  no  words  can  make  a  deeper  and  a  tenderer  im¬ 
pression  upon  the  heart  of  man  than  this  :  The  Infinite 
God,  a  babe,  nursed  at  the  holy  breast  of  woman. 

You  see  these  things  do  not  strike  all  people  the 
same.  To  a  man  that  has  been  raised  on  the  Orthodox 
desert,  these  things  are  incomprehensible.  He  has  been 
robbed  of  his  humanity.  He  has  no  humor,  nothing 
but  the  stupid  and  the  solemn.  His  fancy  sits  -with 
folded  wings. 

Imagination,  like  the  atmosphere  of  Spring,  wooes 
every  seed  of  earth  to  seek  the  blue  of  heaven,  and 
whispers  of  bud  and  flower  and  fruit.  Imagination 
gathers  from  every  field  of  thought  and  pours  the 
wealth  of  many  lives  into  the  lap  of  one.  To  the 
contracted,  to  the  cast-iron  people  who  believe  in 
heartless  and  inhuman  creeds,  the  words  of  the  de¬ 
fendant  seem  blasphemous,  and  to  them  the  thought 
that  God  was  a  little  child  is  monstrous. 

They  cannot  bear  to  hear  it  said  that  he  nursed  at  the 
breast  of  a  maiden,  that  he  was  wrapped  in  swaddling 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


57 


clothes,  that  he  had  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  other  babes. 
I  hope,  gentlemen,  that  not  only  you,  but  the  attorneys 
for  the  prosecution,  have  read  what  is  known  as  the 
“Apocryphal  New  Testament,”  books  that  were  once 
considered  inspired,  once  admitted  to  be  genuine,  and 
that  once  formed  a  part  of  our  New  Testament.  I  hope 
you  have  read  the  books  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermes,  of  the  Infancy  and  of  Mary,  in 
which  many  of  the  things  done  by  the  youthful  Christ 
are  described — books  that  were  once  the  delight  of  the 
Christian  world ;  books  that  gave  joy  to  children, 
because  in  them  they  read  that  Christ  made  little  birds 
of  clay,  that  would  at  his  command  stretch  out  their 
wings  and  fly  with  joy  above  his  head.  If  the  defendant 
in  this  case  had  said  anything  like  that,  here  in  the 
State  of  New  Jersey,  he  would  have  been  indicted  ; 
the  Orthodox  Ministers  would  have  shouted  ‘  ‘  blas¬ 
phemy,”  and  yet,  these  little  stories  made  the  name 
of  Christ  dearer  to  children. 

The  Church  of  to-day  lacks  sympathy  ;  the  theo¬ 
logians  are  without  affection.  After  all,  sympathy  is 
genius.  A  man  who  really  sympathizes  with  another 
understands  him.  A  man  who  sympathizes  with  a 
religion  instantly  sees  the  good  that  is  in  it,  and  the 
man  who  sympathizes  with  the  right,  sees  the  evil 
that  a  creed  contains. 

But  the  defendant,  still  speaking  of  the  infant  Christ, 
is  charged  with  having  said. 


58 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


‘  ‘  God  smiled  when  he  was  comfortable.  He  lay  in  a 
cradle  and  was  rocked  to  sleep.'''' 

Yes,  and  there  is  no  more  beautiful  picture  than  that. 
Let  some  great  religious  genius  paint  a  picture  of  this 
kind — of  a  babe  smiling  with  content,  rocked  in  the 
cradle  by  the  mother  who  bends  tenderly  and  proudly 
above  him.  There  could  be  no  more  beautiful,  no  more 
touching,  picture  than  this.  What  would  I  not  give  for 
a  picture  of  Shakespeare  as  a  babe, — a  picture  that  was 
a  likeuess, — rocked  by  his  mother?  I  would  give  more 
for  this  than  for  any  painting  that  now  enriches  the 
walls  of  the  world. 

The  defendant  also  says,  that 
“  God  was  sick  when  cutting  his  teeth.'" 

And  what  of  that?  We  are  told  that  he  was 
tempted  in  all  points,  as  we  are.  That  is  to  say,  he  was 
afflicted,  he  was  hungry,  he  was  thirsty,  he  suffered 
the  pains  and  miseries  common  to  man.  Otherwise, 
he  was  not  flesh,  he  was  not  human. 

“//<?  caught  the  measles.,  the  mumps.,  the  scarlet  fever 
and  the  whocping  cough.  ’  ’ 

Certainly  he  was  liable  to  have  these  diseases,  for  he 
was,  in  fact,  a  child.  Other  children  have  them.  Other 
children,  loved  as  dearly  by  their  mothers  as  Christ  could 
have  been  by  his,  and  yet  they  are  taken  from  the  little 
family  by  fever ;  taken,  it  may  be,  and  buried  in  the 
snow,  while  the  poor  mother  goes  sadly  home,  wishing 
that  she  was  lying  by  its  side.  All  that  can  be  said  of 


MR.  INGERSOLI<’S  ARGUMENT. 


59 


every  word  in  this  address,  about  Christ  and  about  his 
childhood,  amounts  to  this  ;  that  he  lived  the  life  of  a 
child  ;  that  he  acted  like  other  children,  I  have  read 
you  substantially  what  he  has  said,  and  this  is  con¬ 
sidered  blasphemous. 

He  has  said,  that — ■ 

'‘'‘According  to  the  Old  Testament^  the  God  of  the 
Christian  world  commanded  people  to  destroy  each  other.  ’  ’ 

If  the  bible  is  true,  then  the  statement  of  the 
defendant  is  true.  Is  it  calculated  to  bring  God  into 
contempt  to  deny  that  he  upheld  polygamy,  that  he 
ever  commanded  one  of  his  generals  to  rip  open  with  the 
sword  of  war,  the  woman  with  child  ?  Is  it  blasphemy 
to  deny  that  a  God  of  infinite  love  gave  such  command¬ 
ments?  Is  such  a  denial  calculated  to  pour  contempt 
and  scorn  upon  the  God  of  the  Orthodox  ?  Is  it  blas¬ 
phemous  to  deny  that  God  commanded  his  children  to 
murder  each  other?  Is  it  blasphemous  to  say  that  he 
was  benevolent,  merciful  and  just? 

It  is  impossible  to  say  that  the  bible  is  true  and  that 
God  is  good.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  God  made  this 
world,  filled  it  with  people  and  then  drowned  them. 
I  do  not  believe  that  infinite  wisdom  ever  made  a 
mistake.  If  there  be  any  God  he  was  too  good  to 
commit  such  an  infinite  crime,  too  wise  to  make  such 
a  mistake.  Is  this  blasphemy  ?  Is  it  blasphemy  to  say 
that  Solomon  was  not  a  virtuous  man,  or  that  David  was 
an  adulterer? 


6o 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


Must  we  say  when  this  ancient  king  had  one  of  his 
best  generals  placed  in  the  front  of  the  battle — deserted 
him  and  had  him  murdered  for  the  purpose  of  stealing 
his  wife,  that  he  was  “  a  man  after  God’s  own  heart  ”  ? 
Suppose  the  defendant  in  this  case  were  guilty  of  some¬ 
thing  like  that?  Uriah  was  fighting  for  his  country, 
fighting  the  battles  of  David,  the  king.  David  wanted 
to  take  from  him  his  wife.  He  sent  for  Joab,  his  com¬ 
mander  in  chief,  and  said  to  him  : 

“Make  a  feint  to  attack  a  town.  Put  Uriah  at  the 
front  of  the  attacking  force  and  when  the  people  sally 
forth  from  the  town  to  defend  its  gate,  fall  back  so  that 
this  gallant,  noble,  patriotic  man  may  be  slain.  ’  ’ 

This  was  done  and  the  widow  was  stolen  by  the  king. 
Is  it  blasphemy  to  tell  the  truth  and  to  say  exactly  what 
David  was  ?  Let  us  be  honest  with  each  other  ;  let  us 
be  honest  with  this  defendant. 

For  thousands  of  years  men  have  taught  that  the 
ancient  patriarchs  were  sacred,  that  they  were  far  better 
than  the  men  of  modem  times  that  what  was  in  them  a 
virtue,  is  in  us  a  crime.  Children  are  taught  in  Sunday- 
schools  to  admire  and  respect  these  criminals  of  the 
ancient  days.  The  time  has  come  to  tell  the  tmth 
about  these  men,  to  call  things  by  their  proper  names, 
and  above  all,  to  stand  by  the  right,  by  the  truth,  by 
mercy  and  by  justice.  If  what  the  defendant  has  said  is 
blasphemy  under  this  statute  then  the  question  arises,  is 
the  statute  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  ?  If  this 


MR.  INGERSOLI.’S  ARGUMENT.  6l 

statute  is  constitutional,  why  has  it  been  allowed  to  sleep 
for  all  these  years  ?  I  take  this  position  :  Any  law  made 
for  the  preservation  of  a  human  right,  made  to  guard  a 
human  being,  cannot  sleep  long  enough  to  die  ;  but  any 
law  that  deprives  a  human  being  of  a  natural  right — if 
that  law  goes  to  sleep,  it  never  wakes,  it  sleeps  the  sleep 
of  death. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  that  remarkable 
case  in  England  where,  only  a  few  years  ago,  a  man 
appealed  to  trial  by  battle.  The  law  allowing  trial  by 
battle  had  been  asleep  in  the  statute  book  of  England 
for  more  than  two  hundred  years,  and  yet  the  Court 
held  that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  law  had  been 
asleep — it  being  a  law  in  favor  of  a  defendant — he  was 
entitled  to  trial  by  battle.  And  why  ?  Because  it  was 
a  statute  at  the  time  made  in  defence  of  a  human  right, 
and  that  statute  could  not  sleep  long  enough  or  soundly 
enough  to  die.  In  consequence  of  this  decision,  the  Par¬ 
liament  of  England  passed  a  special  act,  doing  away 
forever  with  the  trial  by  battle. 

When  a  statute  attacks  an  individual  right  the  State 
must  never  let  it  sleep.  When  it  attacks  the  right  of  the 
public  at  large  and  is  allowed  to  pass  into  a  state  of 
slumber,  it  cannot  be  raised  for  the  purpose  of  punishing 
an  individual. 

Now  gentlemen,  a  few  words  more.  I  take  an  almost 
infinite  interest  in  this  trial,  and  before  you  decide,  I  am 
exceedingly  anxious  that  you  should  understand  with 


62 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


clearness  the  thoughts  I  have  expressed  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject.  I  want  you  to  know  how  the  civilized  feel,  and  the 
position  now  taken  by  the  leaders  of  the  world. 

A  few  years  ago  almost  everything  spoken  against  the 
grossest  possible  superstition  was  considered  blasphe¬ 
mous.  The  altar  hedged  itself  about  with  the  sword  ; 
the  Priest  went  in  partnership  with  the  King.  In  those 
days  statutes  were  leveled  against  all  human  speech. 
Men  were  convicted  of  blasphemy  because  they  believed 
in  an  actual  personal  God  ;  because  they  insisted  that 
God  had  body  and  parts.  Men  were  convicted  of  blas¬ 
phemy  because  they  denied  that  God  had  form.  They 
have  been  imprisoned  for  denying  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  and  they  have  been  torn  in  pieces  for 
defending  that  doctrine.  There  are  but  few  dogmas 
now  believed  by  any  Christian  church  that  have  not  at 
some  time  been  denounced  as  blasphemous. 

When  Henry  the  VIII.  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
Episcopal  church  a  creed  was  made,  and  in  that  creed 
there  were  five  dogmas  that  must,  of  necessity,  be 
believed.  Anybody  who  denied  any  one,  was  to  be  pun¬ 
ished — for  the  first  offence,  with  fine,  with  imprisonment, 
or  branding,  and  for  the  second  offence,  with  death. 
Not  one  of  these  five  dogmas  is  now  a  part  of  the  creed  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

So  I  could  go  on  for  days  and  weeks  and  months, 
showing  that  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  religious  dogmas, 
to  deny  which  was  death,  have  been  either  changed  or 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  63 

abandoned  for  others  nearly  as  absurd  as  the  old  ones 
were.  It  may  be,  however,  sufficient  to  say,  that  where- 
ever  the  Church  has  had  power  it  has  been  a  crime  for 
any  man  to  speak  his  honest  thought.  No  Church  has 
ever  been  willing  that  any  opponent  should  give  a  tran¬ 
script  of  his  mind.  Every  Church  in  power  has  appealed 
to  brute  force,  to  the  sword,  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining 
its  creed.  Not  one  has  had  the  courage  to  occupy  the  open 
field.  The  Church  has  not  been  satisfied  with  calling 
infidels  and  unbelievers  blasphemers.  Each  Church  has 
accused  nearly  every  other  Church  of  being  a  blasphemer. 
Every  pioneer  has  been  branded  as  a  criminal.  The 
Catholics  called  Martin  Luther  a  blasphemer,  and  Martin 
Luther  called  Copernicus  a  blasphemer.  Pious  ignorance 
always  regards  intelligence  as  a  kind  of  blasphemy. 
Some  of  the  greatest  men  of  the  world,  some  of  the  best, 
have  been  put  to  death  for  the  crime  of  blasphemy,  that 
is  to  say,  for  the  crime  of  endeavoring  to  benefit  their 
fellow  men. 

As  long  as  the  Church  has  the  power  to  close  the  lips 
of  men,  so  long  and  no  longer  will  superstition  rule  this 
world. 

Blasphemy  is  the  word  that  the  majority  hisses  into 
the  ear  of  the  few. 

After  every  argument  of  the  Church  has  been  answered, 
has  been  refuted,  then  the  Church  cries,  “blasphemy  !” 

Blasphemy  is  what  an  old  mistake  says  of  a  newly  dis¬ 
covered  truth. 


64  MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 

Blasphemy  is  what  a  withered  last  year’s  leaf  says  to 
a  this  year’s  bud. 

Blasphemy  is  the  bulwark  of  religious  prejudice. 

Blasphemy  is  the  breastplate  of  the  heartless. 

And  let  me  say  now,  that  the  crime  of  blasphemy,  as 
set  out  in  this  statute,  is  impossible.  No  man  can  blas¬ 
pheme  a  book.  No  man  can  commit  blasphemy  by 
telling  his  honest  thought.  No  man  can  blaspheme  a 
God,  or  a  Holy  Ghost,  or  a  Son  of  God.  The  Infinite 
cannot  be  blasphemed. 

In  the  olden  time,  in  the  days  of  savagery  and  super¬ 
stition,  when  some  poor  man  was  struck  by  lightning,  or 
when  a  blackened  mark  was  left  on  the  breast  of  a  wife 
and  mother,  the  poor  savage  supposed  that  some  God, 
angered  by  something  he  had  done,  had  taken  his 
revenge.  What  else  did  the  savage  suppose  ?  He  be¬ 
lieved  that  this  God  had  the  same  feelings,  with  regard 
to  the  loyalty  of  his  subjects,  that  an  earthly  chief  had, 
or  an  earthly  king  with  regard  to  the  loyalty  or  treachery 
of  members  of  his  tribe,  or  citizens  of  his  kingdom.  So 
the  savage  said,  when  his  country  was  visited  by  a 
calamity,  when  the  flood  swept  the  people  away,  or  the 
storm  scattered  their  poor  houses  in  fragments  :  ‘  ‘  We  have 
allowed  some  freethinker  to  live  ;  some  one  is  in  our  town 
or  village  who  has  not  brought  his  gift  to  the  priest,  his 
incense  to  the  altar  ;  some  man  of  our  tribe  or  of  our 
country  does  not  respect  our  God.  ’  ’  Then,  for  the  purpose 
of  appeasing  the  supposed  God,  for  the  purpose  of  again 


MR.  ingersoll’s  argument.  65 

winning  a  smile  from  Heaven,  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
a  little  sunlight  for  their  fields  and  homes,  they  drag  the 
accused  man  from  his  home,  from  his  wife  and  children, 
and  with  all  the  ceremonies  of  pious  brutality,  shed  his 
blood.  They  did  it  in  self-defense  ;  they  believed  that 
they  were  saving  their  own  lives  and  the  lives  of  their 
children  ;  they  did  it  to  appease  their  God.  Most  people 
are  now  beyond  that  point.  Now,  when  disease  , visits  a 
community,  the  intelligent  do  not  say  the  disease  came 
because  the  people  were  wicked  ;  when  the  cholera 
comes,  it  is  not  because  of  the  Methodists,  of  the  Catho¬ 
lics,  of  the  Presbyterians,  or  of  the  infidels.  When  the 
wind  destroys  a  town  in  the  far  West,  it  is  not  because 
somebody  there  had  spoken  his  honest  thoughts.  We 
are  beginning  to  see  that  the  wind  blows  and  destroys 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  man,  without  the 
slightest  care  whether  it  destroys  the  good  or  the  bad, 
the  irreligious  or  the  religious.  When  the  lightning 
leaps  from  the  clouds  it  is  just  as  likely  to  strike  a  good 
man  as  a  bad  man,  and  when  the  great  serpents  of  flame 
climb  around  the  houses  of  men,  they  burn  just  as  gladly 
and  just  as  joyously,  the  home  of  virtue,  as  they  do  the 
den  and  lair  of  vice. 

Then  the  reason  for  all  these  laws  has  failed.  The 
laws  were  made  on  account  of  a  superstition.  That  super¬ 
stition  has  faded  from  the  minds  of  intelligent  men  and, 
as  a  consequence,  the  laws  based  on  the  superstition 
ought  to  fail. 


66 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


There  is  one  splendid  thing  in  nature,  and  that  is  that 
men  and  nations  must  reap  the  consequences  of  their 
acts  —  reap  them  in  this  world,  if  they  live,  and  in 
another,  if  there  be  one.  That  man  who  leaves  this 
world  a  bad  man,  a  malicious  man,  will  probably  be 
the  same  man  when  he  reaches  another  realm,  and  the 
man  who  leaves  this  shore  good,  charitable  and  honest, 
will  be  good,  charitable  and  honest,  no  matter  on 
what  star  he  lives  again.  The  world  is  growing 
sensible  upon  these  subjects,  and  as  we  grow  sensible, 
we  grow  charitable. 

Another  reason  has  been  given  for  these  laws  against 
blasphemy,  the  most  absurd  reason  that  can  by  any 
possibility  be  given.  It  is  this.  There  should  be  laws 
against  blasphemy,  because  the  man  who  utters  blas¬ 
phemy  endangers  the  public  peace. 

Is  it  possible  that  Christians  will  break  the  peace  ?  Is 
it  possible  that  they  will  violate  the  law  ?  Is  it  probable 
that  Christians  will  congregate  together  and  make  a  mob, 
simply  because  a  man  has  given  an  opinion  against  their 
religion  ?  What  is  their  religion  ?  They  say,  “  If  a  man 
smites  you  on  one  cheek,  turn  the  other  also.”  They 
say,  “We  must  love  our  neighbors  as  we  love  ourselves.  ’  ’ 
Is  it  possible  then,  that  you  can  make  a  mob  out  of 
Christians,  —  that  these  men,  who  love  even  their 
enemies,  will  attack  others,  and  will  destroy  life,  in  the 
name  of  universal  love?  And  yet,  Christians  them¬ 
selves  say  that  there  ought  to  be  laws  against  blasphemy, 


MR.  INGERSOLI^’S  ARGUMENT. 


67 


for  fear  that  Christians,  who  are  controlled  by  universal 
love,  will  become  so  outraged,  when  they  hear  an  honest 
man  express  an  honest  thought,  that  they  will  leap  upon 
him  and  tear  him  in  pieces. 

What  is  blasphemy?  I  will  give  you  a  definition  ;  I 
will  give  you  my  thought  upon  this  subject.  What  is 
real  blasphemy  ? 

To  live  on  the  unpaid  labor  of  other  men — that  is 
blasphemy. 

To  enslave  your  fellow-man,  to  put  chains  upon  his 
body — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  enslave  the  minds  of  men,  to  put  manacles  upon 
the  brain,  padlocks  upon  the  lips — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  deny  what  you  believe  to  be  true,  to  admit  to  be 
true  what  you  believe  to  be  a  lie — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  strike  the  weak  and  unprotected,  in  order  that  you 
may  gain  the  applause  of  the  ignorant  and  superstitious 
mob — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  persecute  the  intelligent  few,  at  the  command  of 
the  ignorant  many — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  forge  chains,  to  build  dungeons,  for  your  honest 
fellow-men — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  pollute  the  souls  of  children  with  the  dog^ma  of 
eternal  pain — that  is  blasphemy. 

To  violate  your  conscience — that  is  blasphemy. 

The  jury  that  gives  an  unjust  verdict,  and  the  Judge 
who  pronounces  an  unjust  sentence,  are  blasphemers. 

The  man  who  bows  to  public  opinion  against  his  better 


68 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


judgment  and  against  his  honest  conviction,  is  a  blas¬ 
phemer. 

Why  should  we  fear  our  fellow-men  ?  Why  should  not 
each  human  being  have  the  right,  so  far  as  thought  and 
its  expression  are  concerned,  of  all  the  world?  What 
harm  can  come  from  an  honest  interchange  of  thought  ? 

I  have  been  giving  you  my  real  ideas.  I  have  spoken 
freely,  and  yet  the  sun  rose  this  morning,  just  the  same 
as  it  always  has.  There  is  no  particular  change  visible 
in  the  world,  and  I  do  not  see  but  that  we  are  all  as  happy 
to-day  as  though  we  had  spent  yesterday  in  making 
somebody  else  miserable.  I  denounced  on  yesterday 
the  superstitions  of  the  Christian  world,  and  yet,  last 
night  I  slept  the  sleep  of  peace.  You  will  pardon  me 
for  saying  again  that  I  feel  the  greatest  possible 
interest  in  the  result  of  this  trial,  in  the  principle  at 
stake.  This  is  my  only  apology,  my  only  excuse  for 
taking  your  time.  For  years  I  have  felt  that  the  great 
battle  for  human  liberty,  the  battle  that  has  covered 
thousands  of  fields  with  heroic  dead,  had  finally  been 
won.  When  I  read  the  history  of  this  world,  of  what 
has  been  endured,  of  what  has  been  suffered,  of  the 
heroism  and  infinite  courage  of  the  intellectual  and 
honest  few,  battling  with  the  countless  serfs  and  slaves 
of  kings  and  priests,  of  tyranny,  of  hypocrisy,  of  ignorance 
and  prejudice,  of  faith  and  fear,  there  was  in  my  heart 
the  hope  that  the  great  battle  had  been  fought,  and  that 
the  human  race,  in  its  march  towards  the  dawn,  had 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument.  69 

passed  midniglit,  and  that  the  “  great  balance  weighed 
up  morning.”  This  hope,  this  feeling,  gave  me  the 
greatest  possible  joy.  When  I  thought  of  the  many  who 
had  been  burnt,  of  how  often  the  sons  of  liberty  had  per¬ 
ished  in  ashes,  of  how  many  of  the  noblest  and  greatest 
had  stood  upon  scaffolds,  and  of  the  countless  hearts, 
the  grandest  that  ever  throbbed  in  human  breasts,  that 
had  been  broken  by  the  tyranny  of  Church  and  State, 
of  how  many  of  the  noble  and  loving  had  sighed  them¬ 
selves  away  in  dungeons,  the  only  consolation  was  that 
the  last  Bastile  had  fallen,  that  the  dungeons  of  the 
Inquisition  had  been  torn  down  and  that  the  scaffolds 

of  the  world  could  no  longer  be  wet  with  heroic  blood. 

• 

You  know  that  sometimes,  after  a  great  battle  has  been 
fought,  and  one  of  the  armies  has  been  broken,  and  its 
fortifications  carried,  there  are  occasional  stragglers  be¬ 
yond  the  great  field,  stragglers  who  know  nothing  of  the 
fate  of  their  army,  know  nothing  of  the  victory,  and  for 
that  reason,  fight  on.  There  are  a  few  such  stragglers  in 
the  State  of  New  Jersey.  They  have  never  heard  of  the 
great  victory.  They  do  not  know  that  in  all  civilized 
countries  the  hostc  of  superstition  have  been  put  to  flight. 
They  do  not  know  that  freethinkers,  infidels,  are  to-day 
the  leaders  of  the  intellectual  armies  of  the  world. 

One  of  the  last  trials  of  this  character,  tried  in  Great 
Britain, — and  that  is  the  country  that  our  ancestors  fought 
in  the  sacred  name  of  liberty,  — one  of  the  last  trials  in 
that  country,  a  country  ruled  by  a  State  church,  ruled 


70  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

by  a  woman  who  was  born  a  queen,  ruled  by  dukes  and 
nobles  and  lords,  children  of  ancient  robbers — was  in 
the  year  1843.  George  Jacob  Holyoake,  one  of  the  best 
of  the  human  race,  was  imprisoned  on  a  charge  of 
Atheism,  charged  with  having  written  a  pamphlet  and 
having  made  a  speech  in  which  he  had  denied  the 
existence  of  the  British  God.  The  Judge  who  tried  him, 
who  passed  sentence  upon  him,  went  down  to  his  grave 
with  a  stain  upon  his  intellect  and  upon  his  honor.  All 
the  real  intelligence  of  Great  Britain  rebelled  against  the 
outrage.  There  was  a  trial  after  that  to  which  I  will  call 
your  attention.  Judge  Coleridge,  father  of  the  present 
Chief  Justice  of  England,  presided  at  this  trial.  A  poor 
man  by  the  name  of  Thomas  Pooley,  a  man  who  dug 
wells  for  a  living,  wrote  on  the  gate  of  a  priest  that,  if 
people  would  bum  their  bibles  and  scatter  the  ashes  on 
the  lands,  the  crops  would  be  better,  and  that  they  would 
also  save  a  good  deal  of  money  in  tithes.  He  wrote  several 
sentences  of  a  kindred  character.  He  was  a  curious  man. 
He  had  an  idea  that  the  world  was  a  living,  breathing 
animal.  He  would  not  dig  a  well  beyond  a  certain  depth 
for  fear  he  might  inflict  pain  upon  this  animal,  the  earth. 
He  was  tried  before  Judge  Coleridge,  on  that  charge. 
An  infinite  God  was  about  to  be  dethroned,  because  an 
honest  well-digger  had  written  his  sentiments  on  the 
fence  of  a  parson.  He  was  indicted,  tried,  convicted 
and  sentenced  to  prison.  Afterwards,  many  intelligent 
people  asked  for  his  pardon,  on  the  ground  that  he  was 


MR.  ingersoll’s  argument,  7 1 

in  danger  of  becoming  insane.  The  Judge  refused  to  sign 
the  petition.  The  pardon  was  refused.  Tong  before  his 
sentence  expired,  he  became  a  raving  maniac.  He  was 
removed  to  an  asylum  and  there  died.  Some  of  the 
greatest  men  in  England  attacked  that  Judge,  among 
these,  Mr.  Buckle,  author  of  “The  History  of  Civilization 
in  England,”  one  of  the  greatest  books  in  this  world. 
Mr.  Buckle  denounced  Judge  Coleridge.  He  brought 
him  before  the  bar  of  English  opinion,  and  there  was  not 
a  man  in  England,  whose  opinion  was  worth  anything, 
who  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Buckle,  and  did  not  with 
him,  declare  the  conviction  of  Thomas  Pooley  to  be  an 
infamous  outrage.  What  were  the  reasons  given  ?  This, 
among  others.  The  law  was  dead  ;  it  had  been  asleep 
for  many  years  ;  it  was  a  la-'  passed  during  the  ignorance 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  ^  law  that  came  out  of  the  dun¬ 
geons  of  religious  persecution  ;  a  law  that  was  appealed 
to  by  bigots  and  by  hypocrites,  to  punish,  to  [imprison 
an  honest  man. 

In  many  parts  of  this  country  people  have  entertained 
the  idea  that  New  England  was  still  filled  with  the  spirit 
of  Puritanism,  filled  with  the  descendants  of  those  who 
killed  Quakers  in  the  name  of  universal  benevolence, 
and  traded  Quaker  children  in  the  Barbadoes  for  rum, 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  fact  that  God  is  an 
infinite  father. 

Yet,  the  last  trial  in  Massachusetts  on  a  charge  like 
this,  was  when  Abner  Kneeland  was  indicted  on  a  charge 


72  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

of  atheism.  He  was  tried  for  having  written  this  sen¬ 
tence  :  “The  Universalists  believe  in  a  God  which  I  do 
not.”  He  was  convicted  and  imprisoned.  Chief  Justice 
Shaw  upheld  the  decision,  and  upheld  it  because  he  was 
afraid  of  public  opinion  ;  upheld  it,  although  he  must 
have  known  that  the  statute  under  which  Kneeland  was 
indicted,  was  clearly  and  plainly  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution.  No  man  can  read  the  decision  of  Justice 
Shaw  without  being  convinced  that  he  was  absolutely 
dominated,  either  by  bigotry,  or  hypocrisy.  One  of  the 
Judges  of  that  court,  a  noble  man,  wrote  a  dissenting 
opinion,  and  in  that  dissenting  opinion  is  the  argument 
of  a  civilized,  of  an  enlightened  jurist  No  man  can 
answer  the  dissenting  opinion  of  Justice  Morton.  The 
case  against  Kneeland  was  tried  more  than  fifty  years 
ago,  and  there  has  been  none  since  in  the  New  England 
States  ;  and  this  case,  that  we  are  now  trying,  is  the  first 
ever  tried  in  New  Jersey.  The  fact  that  it  is  the  first, 
certifies  to  my  interpretation  of  this  statute,  and  it  also 
certifies  to  the  toleration  and  to  the  civilization  of  the 
people  of  this  State.  The  statute  is  upon  your  books. 
You  inherited  it  from  your  ignorant  ancestors,  and  they 
inherited  it  from  their  savage  ancestors.  The  people 
of  New  Jersey  were  heirs  of  the  mistakes  and  of  the 
atrocities  of  ancient  England. 

It  is  too  late  to  enforce  a  law  like  this.  Why  has  it 
been  allowed  to  slumber?  Who  obtained  this  indict¬ 
ment  ?  Were  they  actuated  by  good  and  noble  motives? 


MR.  INGERSOI,I.’S  ARGUMENT. 


73 


Had  they  the  public  weal  at  heart,  or  were  they  simply 
endeavoring  to  be  revenged  upon  this  defendant  ?  Were 
they  willing  to  disgrace  the  State,  in  order  that  they 
might  pnnish  him  ? 

I  have  given  yon  my  definition  of  blasphemy,  and  now 
the  qnestion  arises,  what  is  worship  ?  Who  is  a  wor¬ 
shipper  ?  What  is  prayer  ?  What  is  real  religion  ?  Let 
me  answer  these  questions. 

Good,  honest,  faithful  work,  is  worship.  The  man 
who  ploughs  the  fields  and  fells  the  forests ;  the  man 
who  works  in  mines,  the  man  who  battles  with  the 
winds  and  waves  out  on  the  wide  sea,  controlling  the 
commerce  of  the  world  ;  these  men  are  worshippers. 
The  man  who  goes  into  the  forest,  leading  his  wife 
by  the  hand,  who  bnilds  him  a  cabin,  who  makes  a 
home  in  the  wilderness,  who  helps  to  people  and 
civilize  and  cnltivate  a  eontinent,  is  a  worshipper. 

Labor  is  the  only  prayer  that  Nature  answers  ;  it 
is  the  only  prayer  that  deserves  an  answer, — good, 
honest,  noble  work. 

A  woman  whose  husband  has  gone  down  to  the  gutter, 
gone  down  to  degradation  and  filth  ;  the  woman  who 
follows  him  and  lifts  him  out  of  the  mire  and  presses 
him  to  her  noble  heart,  nntil  he  becomes  a  man 
once  more,  this  woman  is  a  worshipper.  Her  act  is 
worship. 

The  poor  man  and  the  poor  woman  who  work  night 
and  day,  in  order  that  they  may  give  education  to  their 


74 


MR.  INGERSORL’S  ARGUMENT. 


children,  so  that  they  may  have  a  better  life  than  their 
father  and  mother  had  ;  the  parents  who  deny  them¬ 
selves  the  comforts  of  life,  that  they  may  lay  up 
something  to  help  their  children  to  a  higher  place — 
they  are  worshippers  ;  and  the  children  who,  after  they 
reap  the  benefit  of  this  worship,  become  ashamed  of 
their  parents,  are  blasphemers. 

The  man  who  sits  by  the  bed  of  his  invalid  wife, — a 
wife  prematurely  old  and  gray, — the  husband  who  sits 
by  her  bed  and  holds  her  thin,  wan  hand  in  his  as 
lovingly,  and  kisses  it  as  rapturously,  as  passionately, 
as  when  it  was  dimpled, — that  is  worship  ;  that  man  is 
a  worshipper  ;  that  is  real  religion. 

Whoever  increases  the  sum  of  human  joy,  is  a  wor¬ 
shipper. 

He  who  adds  to  the  sum  of  human  misery,  is  a 
blasphemer. 

Gentlemen,  you  can  never  make  me  believe — no 
statute  can  ever  convince  me,  that  there  is  any  infinite 
being  in  this  universe  who  hates  an  honest  man.  It 
is  impossible  to  satisfy  me  that  there  is  any  God,  or  can 
be  any  God,  who  holds  in  abhorrence  a  soul  that  has  the 
courage  to  express  its  thought.  Neither  can  the  whole 
world  convince  me  that  any  man  should  be  punished, 
either  in  this  world  or  the  next,  for  being  candid  with 
his  fellow-men.  If  you  send  men  to  the  penitentiary 
for  speaking  their  thoughts,  for  endeavoring  to  enlighten 
their  fellows,  then  the  penitentiary  will  become  a  place 


MR.  INGERSORiv’S  ARGUMENT.  75 

of  honor,  and  the  victim  will  step  from  it — not  stained, 
not  disgraced,  but  clad  in  robes  of  glory. 

Let  us  take  one  more  step. 

What  is  holy  ?  What  is  sacred  ?  I  reply  that  human 
happiness  is  holy,  human  rights  are  holy.  The  body 
and  soul  of  man — these  are  sacred.  The  liberty  of 
man  is  of  far  more  importance  than  any  book — the 
rights  of  man,  more  sacred  than  any  religion — than 
any  Scriptures,  whether  inspired  or  not. 

What  we  want  is  the  truth,  and  does  any  one  suppose 
that  all  of  the  truth  is  confined  in  one  book — that  the  mys¬ 
teries  of  the  whole  world  are  explained  by  one  volume  ? 

All  that  is — all  that  conveys  information  to  man — 
all  that  has  been  produced  by  the  past — all  that  now 
exists — should  be  considered  by  an  intelligent  man. 
All  the  known  truths  of  this  world — all  the  philosophy, 
all  the  poems,  all  the  pictures,  all  the  statues,  all  the 
entrancing  music — the  prattle  of  babes,  the  lullaby  of 
mothers,  the  words  of  honest  men,  the  trumpet  calls 
to  duty — all  these  make  up  the  bible  of  the  world — 
everything  that  is  noble  and  true  and  free,  you  will 
find  in  this  great  book. 

If  we  wish  to  be  true  to  ourselves, — if  we  wish  to 
benefit  our  fellow  men — if  we  wish  to  live  honorable 
lives — we  will  give  to  every  other  human  being  every 
right  that  we  claim  for  ourselves. 

There  is  another  thing  that  should  be  remembered 
by  you.  You  are  the  judges  of  the  law,  as  well  as  the 


76  MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 

judges  of  the  facts.  In  a  case  like  this,  you  are  the  final 
judges  as  to  what  the  law  is  ;  and  if  you  acquit,  no 
Court  can  reverse  your  verdict.  To  prevent  the  least 
misconception,  let  me  state  to  you  again  what  I  claim  : 

First.  I  claim  that  the  Constitution  of  New  Jersey 
declares  that ; 

“  The  liberty  of  speech  shall  not  be  abridged.^"' 

Second.  That  this  statute,  under  which  this  indict¬ 
ment  is  found,  is  unconstitutional,  because  it  does 
abridge  the  liberty  of  speech  ;  it  does  exactly  that  which 
the  Constitution  emphatically  says  shall  not  be  done. 

Third.  I  claim,  also,  that  under  this  law — even  if  it 
be  constitutional  —  the  words  charged  in  this  indictment 
do  not  amount  to  blasphemy,  read  even  in  the  light,  or 
rather  in  the  darkness,  of  this  statute. 

Do  not,  I  pray  you,  forget  this  point.  Do  not  forget 
that,  no  matter  what  the  Court  may  tell  you  about  the 
law — how  good  it  is,  or  how  bad  it  is — no  matter  what 
the  Court  may  instruct  you  on  that  subject — do  not 
forget  one  thing,  and  that  is  :  that  the  words  charged 
in  the  indictment  are  the  only  words  that  you  can  take 
into  consideration  in  this  case.  Remember  that,  no 
matter  what  else  may  be  in  the  pamphlet — no  matter 
what  pictures  or  cartoons  there  may  be  of  the  gentlemen 
in  Boonton  who  mobbed  this  man  in  the  name  of  uni¬ 
versal  liberty  and  love — do  not  forget  that  you  have  no 
right  to  take  one  word  into  account  except  the  exact 
words  set  out  in  this  indictment — that  is  to  say,  the 


MR.  ingersoll’s  argument.  77 

words  that  I  have  read  to  you.  Upon  this  point  the 
Court  will  instruct  you  that  you  have  nothing  to  do 
with  any  other  line  in  that  pamphlet ;  and  I  now  claim, 
that  should  the  Court  instruct  you  that  the  statute  is 
constitutional,  still  I  insist  that  the  words  set  out  in  this 
indictment  do  not  amount  to  blasphemy. 

There  is  still  another  point.  This  statute  says : 
“whoever  shall  wilfully  speak  against.”  Now,  in 
this  case,  you  must  find  that  the  defendant  “wilfully” 
did  so  and  so — that  is  to  say,  that  he  made  the  state¬ 
ments  attributed  to  him  knowing  that  they  were  not 
true.  If  you  believe  that  he  was  honest  in  what  he  said, 
then  this  statute  does  not  touch  him.  Even  under  this 
statute,  a  man  may  give  his  honest  opinion.  Certainly, 
there  is  no  law  that  charges  a  man  with  “wilfully” 
being  honest — “wilfully”  telling  his  real  opinion  — 
“wilfully”  giving  to  his  fellow-men  his  thought. 

Where  a  man  is  charged  with  larceny,  the  indictment 
must  set  out  that  he  took  the  goods  or  the  property  with 
the  intention  to  steal — with  what  the  law  calls  the 
animus  furandi.  If  he  took  the  goods  with  the  inten¬ 
tion  to  steal,  then  he  is  a  thief ;  but  if  he  took  the  goods 
believing  them  to  be  his  own,  then  he  is  guilty  of  no 
offence.  So  in  this  case,  whatever  was  said  by  the 
defendant  must  have  been  “wilfully”  said.  And  I 
claim  that  if  you  believe  that  what  the  man  said  was 
honestly  said,  you  cannot  find  him  guilty  under  this 
statute. 


78 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


One  more  point :  This  statute  has  been  allowed  to 
slumber  so  long,  that  no  man  had  the  right  to  awaken 
it.  For  more  than  one  hundred  years  it  has  slept ; 
and  so  far  as  New  Jersey  is  concerned,  it  has  been 
sound  asleep  since  1664.  For  the  first  time  it  is  dug 
out  of  its  grave.  The  breath  of  life  is  sought  to  be 
breathed  into  it,  to  the  end  that  some  people  may 
wreak  their  vengeance  on  an  honest  man. 

Is  there  any  evidence — has  there  been  any — to  show 
that  the  defendant  was  not  absolutely  candid  in  the 
expression  of  his  opinions?  Is  there  one  particle  of 
evidence  tending  to  show  that  he  is  not  a  perfectly 
honest  and  sincere  man  ?  Did  the  prosecution  have 
the  courage  to  attack  his  reputation  ?  No.  The  State 
has  simply  proved  to  you  that  he  circulated  that 
pamphlet — that  is  all. 

It  was  claimed,  among  other  things,  that  the  de¬ 
fendant  circulated  this  pamphlet  among  children. 
There  was  no  such  evidence — not  the  slightest.  The 
only  evidence  about  schools,  or  school-children  was, 
that  when  the  defendant  talked  with  the  bill  poster,  — 
whose  business  the  defendant  was  interfering  with, — 
he  asked  him  something  about  the  population  of  the 
town,  and  about  the  schools.  But  according  to  the 
evidence,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  not  a  solitary  pamphlet 
was  ever  given  to  any  child,  or  to  any  youth.  According 
to  the  testimony,  the  defendant  went  into  two  or  three 
stores, — laid  the  pamphlets  on  a  show  case,  or  threw 


MR.  ingersoll’s  argument. 


79 


them  upon  a  desk — put  them  upon  a  stand  where 
papers  were  sold,  and  in  one  instance  handed  a  pamphlet 
to  a  man.  That  is  all. 

In  my  judgment,  however,  there  would  have  been  no 
harm  in  giving  this  pamphlet  to  every  citizen  of  your 
place. 

Again  I  say,  that  a  law  that  has  been  allowed  to  sleep 
for  all  these  years — allowed  to  sleep  by  reason  of  the 
good  sense  and  by  reason  of  the  tolerant  spirit  of  the 
State  of  New  Jersey,  should  not  be  allowed  to  leap  into 
life  because  a  few  are  intolerant,  or  because  a  few  lacked 
good  sense  and  judgment.  This  snake  should  not  be 
warmed  into  vicious  life  by  the  blood  of  anger. 

Probably  not  a  man  on  this  jury  agrees  with  me 
about  the  subject  of  religion.  Probably  not  a  member 
of  this  jury  thinks  that  I  am  right  in  the  opinions  that 
I  have  entertained  and  have  so  often  expressed.  Most  of 
you  belong  to  some  Church,  and  I  presume  that  those 
who  do,  have  the  good  of  what  they  call  Christianity  at 
heart.  There  may  be  among  you  some  Methodists.  If 
so,  they  have  read  the  history  of  their  Church,  and  they 
know  that  when  it  was  in  the  minority,  it  was  perse¬ 
cuted,  and  they  know  that  they  can  not  read  the  history 
of  that  persecution  without  becoming  indignant.  They 
know  that  the  early  Methodists  were  denounced  as 
heretics,  as  ranters,  as  ignorant  pretenders . 

There  are  also  on  this  jury  Catholics,  and  they  know 
that  there  is  a  tendency  in  many  parts  of  this  country  to 


8o 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


persecute  a  man  now  because  he  is  a  Catholic.  They 
also  know  that  their  Church  has  persecuted  in  times 
past,  whenever  and  wherever  it  had  the  power ;  and 
they  know  that  Protestants,  when  in  power,  have  always 
persecuted  Catholics ;  and  they  know,  in  their  hearts, 
that  all  persecution,  whether  in  the  name  of  law,  or 
religion,  is  monstrous,  savage,  and  fiendish. 

I  presume  that  each  one  of  you  has  the  good  of  what 
you  call  Christianity  at  heart.  If  you  have,  I  beg  of  you 
to  acquit  this  man.  If  you  believe  Christianity  to  be 
a  good,  it  never  can  do  any  Church  any  good  to  put  a 
man  in  jail  for  the  expression  of  opinion.  Any  church 
that  imprisons  a  man  because  he  has  used  an  argument 
against  its  creed,  will  simply  convince  the  world  that  it 
cannot  answer  the  argument. 

Christianity  will  never  reap  any  honor,  will  never 
reap  any  profit,  from  persecution.  It  is  a  poor,  cowardly, 
dastardly  jway  of  answering  arguments.  No  gentleman 
will  do  it — no  civilized  man  ever  did  do  it — no  decent 
human  being  ever  did,  or  ever  will. 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  you  have  a  certain  regard,  a 
certain  affection,  for  the  State  in  which  you  live — that 
you  take  a  pride  in  the  Commonwealth  of  New  Jersey. 
If  you  do,  I  beg  of  you  to  keep  the  record  of  your  State 
clean.  Allow  no  verdict  to  be  recorded  against  the  free¬ 
dom  of  speech.  At  present  there  is  not  to  be  found  on 
the  records  of  any  inferior  Court,  or  on  those  of  the 
Supreme  tribunal — any  case  in  which  a  man  has  been 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  argument.  8l 

punished  for  speaking  his  sentiments.  The  records 
have  not  been  stained — have  not  been  polluted, — with 
such  a  verdict. 

Keep  such  a  verdict  from  the  Reports  of  your  State — 
from  the  Records  of  your  Courts.  No  jury  has  yet,  in 
the  State  of  New  Jersey,  decided  that  the  lips  of  honest 
men  are  not  free — that  there  is  a  manacle  upon  the 
brain. 

For  the  sake  of  your  State — for  the  sake  of  her 
reputation  through  the  world — for  your  own  sakes — 
for  the  sake  of  your  children,  and  their  children  yet  to 
be — say  to  the  world  that  New  Jersey  shares  in  the  spirit 
of  this  age, — that  New  Jersey  is  not  a  survival  of  the 
Dark  Ages, — that  New  Jersey  does  not  still  regard  the 
thumb-screw  as  an  instrument  of  progress, — that  New 
Jersey  needs  no  dungeon  to  answer  the  arguments  of  a 
free  man,  and  does  not  send  to  the  penitentiary  men  who 
think,  and  men  who  speak.  Say  to  the  world,  that 
where  arguments  are  without  foundation.  New  Jersey 
has  confidence  enough  in  the  brains  of  her  people  to  feel 
that  such  arguments  can  be  refuted  by  reason. 

For  the  sake  of  your  State,  acquit  this  man.  For  the 
sake  of  something  of  far  more  value  to  this  world  than 
New  Jersey — for  the  sake  of  something  of  more  import¬ 
ance  to  mankind  than  this  continent — for  the  sake  of 
Human  liberty,  for  the  sake  of  Free  Speech,  acquit 
this  man. 

What  light  is  to  the  eyes,  what  love  is  to  the  heart, 


82 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT. 


Liberty  is  to  the  soul  of  man.  Without  it,  there  come 
suffocation,  degradation  and  death. 

In  the  name  of  Liberty,  I  implore — and  not  only  so, 
but  I  insist — that  you  shall  find  a  verdict  in  favor  of 
this  defendant.  Do  not  do  the  slightest  thing  to  stay 
the  march  of  human  progress.  Do  not  carry  us  back, 
even  for  a  moment,  to  the  darkness  of  that  cruel  night 
that  good  men  hoped  had  passed  away  forever. 

Liberty  is  the  condition  of  progress.  Without  Liberty, 
there  remains  only  barbarism.  Without  Liberty,  there 
can  be  no  civilization. 

If  another  man  has  not  the  right  to  think,  you  have 
not  even  the  right  to  think  that  he  thinks  wrong.  If 
every  man  has  not  the  right  to  think,  the  people  of  New 
Jersey  had  no  right  to  make  a  statute,  or  to  adopt  a  Con¬ 
stitution — no  jury  has  the  right  to  render  a  verdict,  and 
no  Court  to  pass  its  sentence. 

In  other  words,  without  liberty  of  thought,  no  human 
being  has  the  right  to  form  a  judgment.  It  is  impossible 
that  there  should  be  such  a  thing  as  real  religion,  without 
liberty.  Without  liberty  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
conscience,  no  such  word  as  justice.  All  human  actions 
— all  good,  all  bad — have  for  a  foundation  the  idea  of 
human  liberty,  and  without  Liberty  there  can  be  no 
vice,  and  there  can  be  no  virtue. 

Without  Liberty  there  can  be  no  worship,  no  blas¬ 
phemy — no  love,  no  hatred,  no  justice,  no  progress. 

Take  the  word  Liberty  from  human  speech  and  all  the 


MR.  INGERSOLL’S  ARGUMENT.  83 

other  words  become  poor,  withered,  meaningless  sounds 
— but  with  that  word  realized — with  that  word  under¬ 
stood,  the  world  becomes  a  paradise. 

Understand  me.  I  am  not  blaming  the  people.  I  am 
not  blaming  the  prosecution,  nor  the  prosecuting  attor¬ 
ney.  The  officers  of  the  Court  are  simply  doing  what 
they  feel  to  be  their  duty.  They  did  not  find  the  in¬ 
dictment.  That  was  found  by  the  grand  jury.  The 
grand  jury  did  not  find  the  indictment  of  its  own  motion. 
Certain  people  came  before  the  grand  jury  and  made 
their  complaint — gave  their  testimony,  and  upon  that 
testimony,  under  this  statute,  the  indictment  was  found. 

While  I  do  not  blame  these  people — they  not  being 
on  trial — I  do  ask  you  to  stand  on  the  side  of  right. 

I  cannot  conceive  of  much  greater  happiness  than  to 
discharge  a  public  duty,  than  to  be  absolutely  true  to 
conscience,  true  to  judgment,  no  matter  what  authority 
may  say,  no  matter  what  public  opinion  may  demand. 
A  man  who  stands  by  the  right  against  the  world  cannot 
help  applauding  himself,  and  saying  ;  “  I  am  an  honest 
man.  ’  ’ 

I  want  your  verdict — a  verdict  born  of  manhood,  of 
courage ;  and  I  want  to  send  a  dispatch  to-day  to  a 
woman  who  is  lying  sick.  I  wish  you  to  furnish  the 
words  of  this  dispatch — only  two  words — and  these  two 
words  will  fill  an  anxious  heart  with  joy.  They  will  fill 
a  soul  with  light.  It  is  a  very  short  message — only  two 
words — and  I  ask  you  to  furnish  them  :  “Not  guilty.” 


A  HANDSOME 

ART  BRONZE  BUST 


Something  New 
for  Col.  Ingersoll’s  Admirers 

Art  Bronze  is  a  pure  copper  bronze  cast  hollow 
and  filled  with  composition.  It  looks  and  wears 
like  solid  bronze.  This  material  is  being  used  by 
many  of  the  most  prominent  sculptors.  This  bust 
if  made  in  solid  French  bronze  could  not  be  had 
for  less  than  sixty  dollars.  The  original  life-sized 
bust,  from  which  this  is  a  reduced  fac-simile,  was 
made  from  life  in  1877  by  the  late  well  known 
sculptor  Clark  Mills,  of  Washington,  D.  C. 

This  bust  has  the  hearty  endorsement  of,  and  is 
highly  commended  by  Mrs.  Ingersoll  and  her  two 
daughters.  In  order  to  place  this  valuable  souvenir 
and  work  of  art  within  the  reach  of  Col.  Ingersoll’s 
many  friends  the  price  has  been  fixed  at  Fifteen 
Dollars.  Express  paid.  January,  isio. 

Cabinet  Size,  twelve  inches  high,  w^ht  eight  pounds. 


For  Sale  Only  by 

C.  P.  FARRELL 

117  East  2 1st  St^  New  York  City,  N.  Y. 


"Writings  of  't* 

jlRoficrt  #.  Sngersoll 


(All  Books  Ordered  Are  Delivered  Carriage  Prepaid.) 
Abraham  Lincoln.  A  lecture.  With  Century  portrait  of 


the  martyred  President.  Cloth,  $0.75.  Paper .  $0.25 

About  the  Holy  Bible.  A  lecture . 25 

A  Few  Reasons  for  Doubting  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible. 

(From  manuscript  notes  found  among  Col.  Ingersoll’s 
papers) . 10 


A  Thanksgiving  Sermon,  Containing  also  a  tribute  to  Henry 
Ward  Beecher.  “I  thank  the  heroes,”  says  Ingersoll, 
“the  apostles  of  reason,  the  disciples  of  truth,  the  sol¬ 
diers  of  freedom — the  heroes  who  held  high  the  holy 


torch  and  filled  the  world  with  light.” . 25 

Bible  Idolatry.  (Tract.) . 03 

Bible  Not  a  Moral  Guide.  (Tract.) . 05 

Blasphemy.  Argument  in  the  Trial  of  C.  B.  Reynolds,  at 

Morristown,  N.  J.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 25 


Bums  Poem  (The).  By  Ingersoll.  Written  at  the  Burns 
cottage,  Ayr,  Scotland,  August  19,  1878.  A  half-tone 
reproduction  of  the  original  poem  hanging  in  the  cot¬ 
tage,  with  portraits  of  Ingersoll  and  Burns;  extract  from 
Ingersoll’s  lecture  on  Burns  and  fac-simile  of  the  poem. 

Size,  14x8%  inches.  (An  attractive  library  decora¬ 
tion) . 25 

Bust  of  Ingersoll.  (Art  Bronze.)  This  bust,  if  made  in 
solid  French  bronze,  could  not  be  had  for  less 
than  $60.00.  The  original  life-size  bust,  of  which 
this  is  a  reduced  fac-simile,  was  made  from  life  in  1877 


Bust  of  Ingersoll — Continued 

by  the  well-known  sculptor,  Clark  Mills,  of  Washing¬ 
ton,  D.  C.  This  bust  has  the  hearty  endorsement  of 
and  is  highly  commended  by  Mrs.  Ingersoll  and  her  two 
daughters.  In  order  to  place  this  valuable  souvenir 
and  work  of  art  within  the  reach  of  Col.  Ingersoll’s 
many  friends,  the  price  has  been  made  as  small  as  is 
consistent  with  the  work.  Cabinet  size,  twelve  inches 
high,  weight  eight  pounds . $15. 

Christian  Religion  (The).  A  Discussion  between  Col.  Inger¬ 
soll  and  Jeremiah  S.  Black.  Cloth  $0.50.  Paper.  ... 

Crimes  Agaunst  Criminals. .  An  address  delivered  before  the 
New  York  State  Bar  Association . 

Declaration  of  Independence  and  Vision  of  War.  Centen¬ 
nial  oration  and  the  famous  passage  from  Col.  Inger- 
soll’s  speech  at  the  Soldiers’  Reunion  at  Indianapolis 
in  1876,  called  “A  Vision  of  War.” . 

Devil  (The).  A  lecture.  (1899.)  “If  the  Devil  should 
die,  would  God  make  another?” . 

Essays  and  Criticisms.  Contents:  Why  Am  I  an  Agnostic? 
Huxley  and  Agnosticism:  Ernest  Renan:  Count  Tolstoy 
and  the  Kreutzer  Sonata.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 

Field-Ingersoll  Discussion.  From  the  North  American  Re¬ 
view.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 

Foundations  of  Faith.  This  lecture  contains  Col.  Inger- 
soll's  famous  “Creed  of  Science.” . 

Free  Thought:  Is  It  Destructive  or  Constructive?.  A  Sym¬ 
posium  by  Col.  Ingersoll  and  the  other  famous  Free¬ 
thinkers  of  this  country,  England,  and  Canada.  A 
most  successful  effort  to  analyze  the  philosophy  and 
tendency  of  Free  Thought . 

Ghosts  and  Other  Lectures  (The).  Including  the  Ghosts, 
Liberty  of  Man,  Woman  and  Child:  The  Declaration  of 
Independence,  About  Farming  in  Illinois,  Speech  Nomi¬ 
nating  James  G.  Blaine  for  Presidency,  The  Grant 
Banquet,  A  Tribute  to  Rev.  Alex.  Clark,  A  Vision  of 
War,  and  a  Tribute  to  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  225  pages. 
Cloth  .  1. 


00 

25 

15 

10 

,25 

,25 

,25 

25 

25 

00 


2 


Gods  (The).  A  lecture . $0.25 

Great  Infidels  (The).  A  lecture.  Containing  short  biogra¬ 
phies  of  Julian,  Bruno,  Voltaire,  Diderot,  Hume,  Paine 
and  Spinoza . 

Hard  Times  and  the  Way  Out .  . 15 

Heretics  and  Heresies.  A  lecture.  Containing  also  Alex. 

Von  Humboldt.  A  biography . 25 

How  to  Reform  Mankind.  An  address,  delivered  before 
the  Militant  Church,  at  the  Columbia  Theatre,  Chicago, 

April  12,  1896.  (With  portrait) . 25 

Individuality.  A  lecture . 25 


Ingersoll  as  He  Is.  The  truth  about  the  Life,  Works  and 
Character  of  Col.  R.  G.  Ingersoll,  with  a  refutation  of 
the  baseless  and  false  calumnies,  libels  and  slanders  in¬ 
vented  and  circulated  by  the  clergy  of  the  United  States 
and  elsewhere.  Cloth,  $0.75.  Paper .  .25 

Ingersoll — A  Biographical  Appreciation.  By  Herman  E. 
Kittredge.  600  pages,  8vo.  Illustrated  with  photo¬ 
gravure  frontispiece,  printed  on  Japanese  paper,  and 
eight  full-page  half-tones  and  fac-simile  letters. 

It  is  the  first  important  and  authoritative  account 
of  the  life-work  of  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  It  pre¬ 
sents,  in  chronological  order,  through  the  media  of  au¬ 
thentic  incidents,  letters,  interviews,  extracts,  anec¬ 
dotes,  and  so  forth,  the  life-story  of  a  man  who  was 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  and  interesting  individ¬ 
uals  of  his  century — orator  par  excellence,  patriot,  sol¬ 
dier,  lawyer,  philanthropist,  wit  and  humorist,  prose- 
poet,  thinker,  iconoclast,  reformer,  and  champion  of 
intellectual  liberty.  The  volume  is  thoroughly  indexed, 
the  index,  from  beginning  to  end,  being  in  absolutely 
alphabetical  order,  so  that  any  subject  or  name  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  text,  or  in  the  extracts  from  Ingersoll’s 
writings  may  be  instantly  located. 

“It  is  a  zealous  and  eloquent  defense  and  vindica¬ 
tion  of  Ingersoll’s  public  career,  couched  in  terms  and 
phrases  such  as  the  orator  himself  might  have  em- 


3 


Ingersoll — A  Biographical  Appreciation — Continued 

ployed,  and  heightened  on  occasion  by  liberal  quota¬ 
tions  from  his  written  works.”  —  Philadelphia  North 
A  merican. 

Cloth  binding, . $2.50  net,  postpaid.  .  $2.70 

Three-quarter  morocco  binding,  6.00,  “  ...  6.21 

(Also  issued  uniform  with  the  Dresden  and  Auto¬ 
graph  Editions  of  Ingersoll’ s  works.) 

Ingersoll  Catechised.  An  interview.  (Tract.) . 03 

Ingersoll — Complete  Works  of.  Dresden  Edition,  1  3  vol¬ 
umes,  illustrated  with  1 3  photogravure  portraits  and 
1  1  half-tones.  This  is  the  only  authorized  and  com¬ 
plete  edition  of  the  writings  of  the  great  orator  and 
author.  Published  by  the  authority  of  Ingersoll’s  lit¬ 
erary  executor.  Price,  per  set,  cloth  binding .  32,50 

Three-quarter  morocco  binding .  78.00 

(Sold  only  in  complete  sets  and  on  the  plan  of 
small  monthly  payments.) 

Ingersoll-Gladstone  Controversy.  Wm.  E.  Gladstone’s  arti¬ 
cle  and  Col.  Ingersoll’s  reply.  From  the  North  Ameri¬ 
can  Review.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 25 

Ingersoll  on  McGlynn. .  An  interview.  (Tract.) . 03 

Ingersoll  to  the  Clergy.  His  answers  to  their  questions  and 
criticisms.  Replies  to  the  Indianapolis  and  Brooklyn 
ministers.  Address  before  the  Unitarian  Club,  address 
on  Thomas  Paine,  and  a  paper  on  God  in  the  Consti¬ 
tution  . 25 

Ingersoll  the  Man.  The  Great  Orator  as  he  was  known  to 
those  who  lived  near  him.  By  Clarence  S.  Brown,  Col. 
Ingersoll’s  legal  associate.  (Tract.) . 05 

Interviews  on  Talmage.  Being  six  interviews  with  the 
famous  Orator  on  Six  Sermons  by  the  Rev.  T.  De  Witt 
Talmage,  to  which  is  added  a  Talmagian  Catechism. 

474  pages . 50 

Lay  Sermon  on  the  Labor  Question . 10 


4 


Liberty  in  Literature.  Testimonial  to  Walt.  Whitman.  An 
address  delivered  in  Philadelphia,  October  21,  1890, 
with  portrait  of  Whitman.  Containing  also  Col.  Inger- 
soll’s  address  at  the  Funeral  of  Walt.  Whitman,  March 
30,  1892.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper .  $0.25 

Liberty  of  Man,  Woman  and  Child.  Has  a  fine  photo¬ 
engraving  of  Ingersoll  and  both  his  grandchildren, 

Eva  and  Robert;  also  the  Tribute  to  his  Brother .  .25 

Limitations  of  Toleration.  A  Discussion  between  Col.  R.  G. 
Ingersoll,  Frederick  R.  Coudert,  and  Stewart  L.  Wood¬ 
ford  before  the  Nineteenth  Century  Club . 10 

Love.  Col.  Ingersoll’s  beautiful  words  on  love.  Printed 
on  heavy  enameled  card;  illustrated  in  colors  with 
portraits.  (For  framing) . 50 


Mistakes  of  Moses  (Some).  Contents:  Some  Mistakes  of 
Moses.  Free  Schools.  The  Politicians.  Man  and 
Woman.  The  Pentateuch.  Monday,  Tuesday, 
Wednesday,  Thursday.  “He  Made  the  Stars  Also.” 
Friday,  Saturday.  “Let  Us  Make  Man.”  Sunday. 
The  Necessity  for  a  Good  Memory.  The  Garden.  The 
Fall.  Dampness,  Bacchus  and  Babel.  Faith  in  Filth. 
The  Hebrews.  The  Plagues.  The  Flight.  Confess 
and  Avoid.  Inspired  Slavery.  Marriage.  War.  Re¬ 


ligious  Liberty.  Conclusion.  270  pages .  .35 

Myth  and  Miracle.  A  lecture . 25 

Orthodoxy.  One  of  Col.  Ingersoll’s  greatest  lectures . 25 


Photographs  of  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  Perfect  in  pose, 
happy  in  expression,  faultless  in  finish.  These  pictures 
almost  speak  to  you  audibly.  Y ou  have  only  to  imagine 
the  musical,  sympathetic  voice,  the  fine,  flashing  eye, 
the  glowing  countenance,  and  the  whole  animated,  pul¬ 
sating  form,  to  see  and  hear  the  living  man  and  orator 
before  you.  The  panel  size,  in  full-length  portraiture, 
is  particularly  suited  for  framing,  and  is  commended  to 
all  the  Colonel’s  admirers.  Panel,  18  x  24  inches.  .  .  .  5.00 


Imperial,  lYi  x  13  Inches .  3.00 

Cabinet,  4x6  Inches .  .  ,50 

Paine,  Thomas.  A  lecture . 25 


S 


Paine’s  Vindication.  A  reply  to  the  New  York  Observer’s 
attack  upon  the  Author-Hero  of  the  Revolution.  A 
little  pamphlet  which  every  admirer  of  Thomas  Paine 
should  have  by  him  for  reference .  $0.15 

Patriotic  Speeches,  Reunion  Address  and  Decoration  Day 
Oration.  Address  delivered  at  Elmwood,  111.,  Septem¬ 
ber  5,  1895,  at  the  reunion  of  his  old  regiment,  the 
Eleventh  Illinois  Cavalry;  also  his  famous  Oration,  de¬ 
livered  on  Decoration  Day,  1 882,  before  the  Grand 
Army  of  the  Republic  at  the  Academy  of  Music,  New 
York.  These  two  classics  are  published  in  book  form 
for  the  first  time  from  revised  manuscript.  It  also  con¬ 
tains  a  handsome  half-tone  portrait  of  the  Colonel  and 
his  little  grandson,  Robert  G.  Ingersoll-Brown.  Printed 
on  good  paper,  large  type,  wide  margins,  in  one  vol¬ 


ume.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 25 

Photogravure  Portrait.  India-proof  reproduction,  size 
1  1  |/2  X  8  inches,  of  the  bronze  Statute  of  Robert  Inger- 
soll.  Unveiled  at  Peoria,  October  28,  1911.  Statue 
by  Fritz  Triebel.  Full  figure .  .35 


Portrait  of  Ingersoll.  Reproduced  in  photogravure  from  the 
well-known  three-quarter  portrait  taken  in  1890. 
Printed  on  Japanese  paper,  fac-simile  autograph,  size 
6x8%  inches . 25 

Portraits  of  Colonel  Ingersoll,  taken  by  Hollinger  in  March, 

1897,  are  without  doubt  one  of  the  best  examples  of 
photography  ever  produced.  The  large  size,  three- 


quarter  face,  or  full  profile,  28  x  30  inches .  25.00 

The  small  size,  three-quarter  face,  or  full  profile, 

11x14  inches .  5.00 


Proceedings  at  Civil  Rights  Meeting  in  Washington,  D.  C. 

Being  speeches  of  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  and  Fred¬ 
erick  Douglass  protesting  against  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  that  the  Civil  Rights  Act  is  Unconsti¬ 
tutional . 15 

Prose-Poems  and  Selections  from  the  Writings  and  Sajdngs 
of  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  De  Luxe  Edition,  revised  and 
enlarged,  large  8vo,  426  pages.  Printed  on  hand¬ 
made  paper  with  steel  plate  portrait.  Cloth,  $2.50. 
Three-quarter  levant-morocco.  . .  7.50 


6 


Prose-Poems  and  Selections  from  the  Writings  and  Sayings 
of  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  Popular  Edition.  Half-tone 
frontispiece.  Cloth  binding .  $1.50 

Rome  or  Reason.  Discussion  between  Cardinal  Manning 
and  Colonel  Ingersoll,  to  which  are  added  the  Articles 
discussing  the  question,  “Is  Divorce  Wrong?”  by  Cardi¬ 
nal  Gibbons,  Bishop  Henry  C.  Potter,  and  Col.  Inger¬ 
soll.  Cloth,  $0.50.  Paper . 25 

Shakespeare.  “An  intellectual  ocean,  whose  waves  touched 
all  the  shores  of  thought.”  A  lecture,  with  likeness  of 
Shakespeare  from  the  Kesselstadt  death  mask .  ,25 

Some  Reasons  Why.  A  lecture.  Contents:  Some  Reasons 
Why.  Duties  to  God.  Inspiration.  God’s  Experiment 
with  the  Jews.  Civilized  Countries.  A  Comparison  of 
Books.  The  New  Testament.  Christ’s  Mission. 

Eternal  Pain . 25 

Stage  and  Pulpit.  An  interview  with  Colonel  Ingersoll  upon 

their  Comparative  Merit.  (Tract.) .  .03 

Superstition.  A  lecture.  (1899.) . 25 

The  Truth.  A  lecture . 25 

Truth  of  History.  Comments  on  the  assertion  by  an  evan¬ 
gelist  that  Colonel  Ingersoll  had  become  a  Christian ; 
had  admitted  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted,  and  that 
his  own  children  had  joined  the  church.  (Tract.)  .  .  .  .03 

Tribute  to  His  Brother,  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll.  In  the  pamphlet. 

“Liberty  of  Man,  Woman  and  Child.” . 25 

Tribute  to  Roscoe  Conkling.  Printed  by  the  State  of  New 
York;  on  heavy  plate  paper,  wide  margins,  fine  steel 
engraving  with  autograph  fac-simile  of  Mr.  Conkling, 
bound  in  black  cloth,  gilt  sides . 75 

Vuion  of  War  (A).  Magnificently  illustrated  with  thirteen 
colored  lithograph  plates,  by  H.  A.  Ogden.  One  of  the 
finest  bursts  of  oratory,  one  of  the  sublimest  pieces  of 
word  painting,  one  of  the  noblest  prose-poems  in  all  of 
Ingersoll’s  works  and  in  all  literature,  is  this  “Vision  of 
War.”  Thousands  have  read  it  and  been  moved  to 
tears  or  enthusiasm.  There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the 
world;  for  effectiveness  it  has  no  mate.  The  power  of 


7 


Vision  of  War  (A). — Continued 

this  masterpiece  has  been  greatly  augmented  by  the  pic¬ 
tures  which  have  been  made  to  illustrate  it  by  H.  A. 

Ogden  and  printed  with  the  text  of  the  “Vision.”  Of 
these  plates  there  are  thirteen,  with  two  additional 
leaves,  upon  which  the  whole  of  the  “Vision”  is  printed 
for  consecutive  reading.  Sent  postpaid  complete . $1*00 

Voltaire.  A  lecture.  With  portrait  of  the  great  French 
Philosopher  and  Poet.  “Voltaire  was  the  greatest  man 
of  his  century,  and  did  more  to  free  the  human  race 


than  any  other  of  the  sons  of  men.” .  .25 

What  1  Know  About  Farming.  A  lecture . 25 

Why  I  Am  an  Agnostic.  A  lecture . . 25 


What  Must  We  Do  to  Be  Saved?  A  lecture.  Analyzes  the 
so-called  gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John, 
and  devotes  a  chapter  each  to  the  Catholics,  Episco¬ 
palians,  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Evangelical  Alli¬ 
ance,  and  answers  the  questions  of  the  Christians  as  to 


what  he  proposes  instead  of  Christianity .  .25 

Which  Way?  This  lecture  is  a  consideration  of  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  natural  and  supernatural,  with  some 
reasons  why  the  former  is  the  better  way  to  go .  .25 

What  Is  Religion?  Colonel  Ingersoll’s  last  public  address, 
delivered  at  the  meeting  of  the  Free  Religious  Asso¬ 
ciation,  in  Boston,  on  June  2,  1899 . 10 


COLONEL  INGERSOLL’S  NOTE  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

“I  wish  to  notify  the  public  that  all  books  and  pamphlets  pur¬ 
porting  to  contain  my  lectures,  and  not  containing  the  imprint  of 
Mr.  C.  P.  Farrell  as  publisher,  are  spurious,  grossly  inaccurate, 
filled  with  mistakes,  horribly  printed  and  outrageously  unjust  to  me. 
The  publishers  of  all  such  are  simply  literary  thieves  and  pirates, 
and  are  obtaining  money  from  the  public  under  false  pretences. 
These  wretches  have  published  one  lecture  under  four  titles,  and 
several  others  under  two  or  three.  I  take  this  course  to  warn  the 
public  that  these  publications  are  fraudulent;  the  only  correct 
editions  being  those  published  by  Mr.  C.  P.  Farrell.” 

C.  JfarreU 
117  Cast  2 1st  Street 
^ctD  |?orfe 


A  SHORT  HISTORY 

OF 

THE  INQUISITION 

An  Epitome  of  the  History  of  what  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  done  in  the  way  of  destroying  human  life  to 
preserve  its  dogmas. 

Also  what  the  Protestant  Church  has  done  in  the  same 
direction. 

And  a  record  of  how  both  organizations  have  opposed 
Science  and  destroyed  scientists. 

The  Christian  argument  in  support  of  chattel  slavery, 
given  from  books  by  Christian  ministers. 

The  contents  of  hundreds  of  volumes  condensed  into 
one. 

A  hundred  pages  of  pictures  of  the  Inquisition’s  instru¬ 
ments  of  torture,  autos-da-fe,  massacres,  etc.,  some  of  the 
illustrations  dating  back  to  the  13th  century. 

The  best  book  of  reference  on  this  subject  ever  printed. 
Over  six  hundred  pages  of  text,  and  a  voluminous  index. 

Printed  in  the  clearest  of  type,  on  fine  super-calendered 
paper,  handsomely  bound  in  cloth. 

Price,  $2.00,  postpaid 


For  Sale 

C.  P.  FARRELL 

117  East  2 1  St.,  .  New  York  City,  N.  Y. 


Just  Out.  Elighth  Edition. 

Prose-Poems  and  Selections. 

By  ROBERT  G.  INGERSOLL 


Revised  and  greatly  Enlarged.  A  Handsome  8vo.  containing  427  pages. 

This  is,  beyond  question,  the  most  elegant  volume  in  Liberal  literature.  No  expens 
has  been  spared  to  make  it  the  thing  of  beauty  that  it  is.  The  type  is  large  and  cleai 
the  paper  genuine  water-marked  Spartan,  all-rag  feataerweight,  pure  white,  decki 
edge,  the  piesswork  is  faultless,  and  the  binding  as  perfect  as  the  best  materials  and  ski; 
can  make  it.  The  book  is  in  every  way  an  artistic  triumph. 

As  to  the  contents,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  they  include  jOme  of  the  very  choicest  uttei 
ances  of  the  greatest  writer  on  the  topics  treated  that  has  ever  lived. 

You  will  have  in  this  book  of  selections  many  bright  samples  of  his  lofty  though^  hi 
matchless  eloquence,  his  wonderful  imagery,  and  his  epigrammatic  and  poetic  power. 

Tl.e  book  is  designed  for,  and  will  be  accepted  by  admiring  friends  as  a  rare  person? 
souvenir.  To  help  it  serve  this  purpose,  a  fine  steel  portrait,  with  autograph  fac-similc 
has  been  prepared  especially  for  it.  In  the  more  elegant  styles  of  binding  it  is  eminent! 
suited  for  presentation  purposes,  for  any  season  or  occasion. 


Oration  delivered  on  Deco¬ 
ration-Day,  1882,  before 
the  Grand  /»rmy  of  the  Re¬ 
public,  at  the  Academy  of 
Music,  N.  Y., 

A  Tribute  to  Ebon  C.  In- 
gersoll, 

A  Vision  of  War, 

At  a  Child’s  Grave, 

Benefits  for  Iniuries, 

We  Build, 

A  Tribute  to  the  Re’'  Alex¬ 
ander  Clark, 

The  Grant  Banquet, 
Apostrophe  to  i^ibf  rty, 

A  Tribute  to  John  G.  Mills, 
The  Warp  and  Woof, 

The  Cemetery, 

Originality, 

Then  and  Now, 

Voltaire, 

lazarus. 

What  is  Worship? 
Humboldt, 

God  Silent, 

Alcohol, 

Augu'te  Comte, 

The  Infidel, 

Napoleon, 

The  Republic, 

Dawn  of  the  New  Day, 

Ref  orn.ers. 

The  (Jarden  ct  Eden, 

Thomas  Faine, 

The  .Ace  o)  Faith, 

Origin  ot  Religion, 

Ihe  Unpardon.-'ble  Sin, 

The  Olive  branch. 


CONTENTS 

F'ree  VV,ll, 

The  King  of  Death, 

The  Wise  Man, 

Bruno, 

The  Real  Bible, 

Benedict  Spinoza, 

The  First  Doubt, 

The  Infinite  Horror, 

Nature, 

Night  and  Jlorning, 

The  Conflict, 

Death  of  the  Aged 

The  Charity  of  Extravagance, 

Woman, 

The  Sacred  Myths, 
Inspiration, 

Relicious  Liberty  of  the 
BiMe, 

The  Laugh  of  a  Child, 

The  Christian  Night, 

Mv  Choice. 

Why? 

Imagination, 

Science, 

Here  and  There, 

If  Death  Ends  All, 

Flow  Long, 

Liberty, 

Jehovah  and  Brahma, 

The  Free  Soul, 

My  Position, 

Good  and  Bad, 

The  Miraculous  Book, 
Orthodo:;  Dotage, 

The  .Abolitionists, 

Providence, 

The  Man  Christ, 

The  Divine  Salutation, 
Fashion  and  Beauty, 


At  the  Grave  of  Beiij.  W 
Parker, 

Apostiophe  to  Scie'ice, 
Elizur  Wright, 

The  Imagination, 

No  Respecter  of  Persons, 
Abraham  Lincoln, 

The  Meaning  of  Law, 

Wha'  is  Blasphemy, 

Some  Reasons, 

Selections, 

L  ove. 

Origin  and  Destiny, 

I.ife. 

The  Birthplace  of  Burns, 
Tri'o.’te  to  Heniy  Wa'. 
Beecher, 

Mrs.  Ida  Whiting  Knowles, 
Art  and  Morality, 

Tribute  to  Roscoe  Conkli.ig 
Tribute  to  Coiirtlandt  Palme* 
Tribute  to  Richard  H.  Wliil 
ing. 

The  Brain, 

The  Sacred  Leaves, 

Mrs.  Mary  II.  Fiske, 
Horace  Seaver, 

What  is  Poetry? 

The  Music  of  Wagner, 
Leaves  of  Grass, 

A’iviseciion, 

Republic  of  Mediocrity, 
Tribute  to  Walt  Whitman,- 
Speech  Nominating  James  ( 
Blaine, 

The  Jews, 

Tribute  to  Anton  Seidl, 
Tribute  to  Isaac  H.  Bailey 
Declaration  oi  the  Free. 


In  Silk  Cloth,  gilt  top.  deckle  edge,  ...  $2.50 

Ic  Half  Morocco,  deckle  edge,  gilt  top.  •  •  •  5. CO 

In  Yi  old  rose  crushed  levant,  deckle  edge,  gilt  top,  7.50 


Sent  tc  any  address,  by  express,  prepaid,  or  mail,  post  free,  on  receipt  of  price. 

A  ^uxiper  Miitionfiom,  same  plates,  go'-'i  Paper,  toide  margins,  Venetian  boaras,  cloth  buckSlJ 


C.  P.  FARKfciJL,  Publisher,  1 17  E.  Zlst  St.,  N.  Y.  City  3 


t-J  V. 


V 


* 


is 


IV  iS 

SW' 


«V 


V:« 

r.. 


4_J' 


A.'J 


♦  w-  % 


.. 


♦  *1, 


>..■ 


Trials. 

f 

L9B778 

Vol.20 

DATE 

ISSUED  TO 

2.-0 


